From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Sep 1 00:54:10 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 00:54:10 -0000 Subject: Not a Dark Mark ? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139245 I can't take credit for this Brilliant theory. But I can't keep my mouth shut about it either! ('specially since it gets me off that darn boat! mumble mumble grumble...) Throughout HBP Draco starts to look more and more sickly. He keeps disappearing. In Borgin and Burkes he shows Borgin something that frightens him, Harry thinks its a Dark Mark, but how can we be sure. Can we even really be sure that a Dark Mark would frighten Borgin? When Snape showed Fudge his burning Dark Mark, it didn't frighten him much, and there are many in the WW who don't even know what they are. Well it could be a Dark Mark, but since there *is* reason for doubt, then why don't we call it a Werewolf bite ? John Granger, to whom the credit for this brilliant find belongs, has written about it on his site at this link. http://www.hogwartsprofessor.com/home.php?page=docs/AlchemicalThoughtsHP7&PHPSESSID=0a29d7aacd33a7a04a82c41a8fc9ea3d Thoughts anyone? Or are we all as dumbstruck as me? Valky From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Sep 1 01:30:17 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 01:30:17 -0000 Subject: Not a Dark Mark ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139247 Valky: > Well it could be a Dark Mark, but since there *is* reason for doubt, > then why don't we call it a Werewolf bite ? *(snip)* > Thoughts anyone? Or are we all as dumbstruck as me? Ceridwen: Wow. I didn't think Draco had the Dark Mark yet. I thought that might be a carrot Voldemort was holding out until after the (*as Voldy snickers*) successful completion of his mission. Still, he did show the man something... And he did invoke his close personal friend, Fenrir Greyback, around that time, too. Yes, I'm as dumbstruck as you. Glad to see where Hermione gets her smarts. ;) Ceridwen. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 01:32:47 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 01:32:47 -0000 Subject: Apologizing to Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139248 > Meri: > > > I mean, he's pathetic in the sense that he > > is a grown man who gets his jollies off torturing little children, > > houyhnhnm: > > Torturing? That's a bit excessive isn't it? I don't approve of the > way Snape plays favorites or the fact that he crosses the line and > gets personal with students, but I've had plenty of teachers like him. Alla: No, personally I don't think it is excessive, but this is one of the most debatable issues on the list, that is for sure. :-) Prior to HBP, I would say mostly " emotional torture", but after Snape cursing Harry, I would say he has no problems with physical one either. The fact that Snape is Neville's biggest fear was brought up many times. The consequences of Snape's treatment of Harry are more subtle, that is for sure, since Harry is more capable of resisting Snape, but I think we can see that Harry is also quite hurt by it, albeit it does not show up as often. "Wondering what on earth was doing here, he jumped when Snape's cold voice came out of the corner. "Shut the door behind you, Potter." Harry did as he was told with the horrible feeling that he was imprisoning himself as he did so." -OOP, paperback, p.529 "Snape pulled out his wand from an inside pocket of his robes and Harry tensed in his chair, but Snape merely raised the wand to his temple and placed its tip into the greasy roots of his hair" - OOP, paperback, p.533. To me those quotes show perfectly that deep inside Harry IS afraid of Snape and it also showed to me that Occlumency had no chance to succeed from the beginning, when before lessons even started Harry had a feeling that he was imprisoning himself when being one on one with Snape. Houyhmmmm: This whole issue has gotten completely away from the discussion of a > fictional work. It's just a bunch of people grinding their personal > axes. Alla: Yep, I love gringing axes at fictional characters :-) JMO, Alla From Gregory.Lynn at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 02:14:49 2005 From: Gregory.Lynn at gmail.com (Gregory Lynn) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 22:14:49 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Not a Dark Mark ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139250 On 8/31/05, M.Clifford wrote: > > When Snape showed Fudge his burning Dark Mark, it didn't frighten him > much, and there are many in the WW who don't even know what they are. > Well it could be a Dark Mark, but since there *is* reason for doubt, > then why don't we call it a Werewolf bite ? > > > http://www.hogwartsprofessor.com/home.php?page=docs/AlchemicalThoughtsHP7&PHPSESSID=0a29d7aacd33a7a04a82c41a8fc9ea3d > > Thoughts anyone? Or are we all as dumbstruck as me? > > Valky Interesting, and I suppose it is certainly possible, but why would Borgin be afraid of a werewolf bite? It's not like he was going to be hanging around with Draco waiting for a full moon. -- > Gregory Lynn [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 02:22:38 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 02:22:38 -0000 Subject: Not a Dark Mark ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139251 Gregory Lynn wrote: > Interesting, and I suppose it is certainly possible, but why would Borgin > be afraid of a werewolf bite? It's not like he was going to be hanging > around with Draco waiting for a full moon. > > -- > > Gregory Lynn zgirnius: Not sure I believe the theory, I need to think about it more, but my reaction was also 'WOW'. To answer thge above objection, the implied threat is not that Draco is going to bite Borgin there and then, but that Greyback will bite him, or a family member, at a full moon, if he fails. The threat is made more real/believable since apparently this has already happened to Draco, a member of a prominent family with Death Eater members. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Sep 1 02:30:20 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 02:30:20 -0000 Subject: If R.A.B. is Regulus... puzzle pieces falling into place. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139252 In light of the recent Regulus is RAB confirmation rumour. I have taken the liberty of running away with the assumption that it's true, and come up with a theory. First is to establish the date of Reggies death. In OOtP he i said to have died "some fifteen years previous". A general place in time which coincides remarkably! with the attack on Godrics Hollow. Hence to assume that the mysterious Locket horcrux attacker is dear Reggie, is to likewise assume that the cave was infiltrated around about the time that Voldmeort was preoccupied with his plan to attack Harry. This, not only, clears up a few logistical difficulties that arise when postulating that Reg did it, such as when did he slip away; how did he get under the nose of LV to steal his Horcrux, it also opens a new door to all kinds of theories for that fateful night and the short time following it. To get it all together lets look at the timeline of things here: Day 1 Voldemort attacks GH Day 2 Sirius is put in Azkaban and Harry is put in Privet Drive Day 3 or 4 The Longbottoms are attacked and tortured by the Lestranges. There are a lot of missing pieces here, and I think Regulus can fill them. First Question: whats wrong with the picture on day 1? Second Question: There are two prophecy boys and *only one* is attacked. Why would LV just choose which one *he's* going to kill and leave the other? Wouldn't it be ironic if it was alays Neville who had the power to vanquish him. (guffaw!) No its not funny, really. Voldemort didn't disregard Neville this offhandedly. Surely NOT! I don't think so. I think he sent two of his favourite DE's to kill the Longbottoms too while he attacked GH. Two chummy young fellas who were both pretty spectacular in battle. The *right* two for a job that required taking on two exemplary Aurors in full defense mode. It's speculation but it logical, he sent Snape and Regulus. But neither Snape or Reggie arrived at the Longbottms house that night. Each for their own reasons. Snape, probably, compelled by his life debt to James and his regret for his deed against innocent Lily, followed Voldemort instead, and Regulus disguted by LV's disrespect of the principles that he was lured to the DE for the sake of, appalled that he was being sent to destroy a *pureblood* line, backed out and went after Voldemorts Horcrux instead. Aha! If the shoe fits I say!! Voldemort is reduced to waste at Godrics Hollow, and the Lestranges, relatives of young Reggie who were awre tht he was involved in this important and secret mission went to his house on day two to find out what happened. But when they get there they find only the story of Regulus death, apparent in the face of his now dead from a broken heart mother and Kreachers incoherent babblings about Regulus backing out of his mission because of the The Longbottoms and Voldemort being hidden in a cave. Valky Wrapping up another night on the Firewhiskey.. From msbeadsley at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 02:54:11 2005 From: msbeadsley at yahoo.com (msbeadsley) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 02:54:11 -0000 Subject: Not a Dark Mark ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139253 "M.Clifford" wrote: > Well it could be a Dark Mark, but since there *is* reason for doubt, > then why don't we call it a Werewolf bite ? > > Thoughts anyone? Or are we all as dumbstruck as me? > Valky Actually, it gave me chills...but mostly because I posted the idea of Greyback biting Malfoy (shame on me, I'm so mean) as part of my Book 7 wish list ("what you hope will happen in Book 7") on the anniversary mixer Q/A on OTChatter (#28744) a few days ago, before I'd ever heard of John Granger.* I liked the idea as outlined on John Granger's website for a minute or two. Then something bothered me, so I went back and reread the scene in Borgin and Burkes. Malfoy is trying to bully Borgin into helping with the repair of (what we now know is) the Vanishing Cabinet: Harry saw Borgin lick his lips nervously. "Well, without seeing it, I must say it will be a very difficult job, perhaps impossible. I couldn't guarantee anything." "No?" said Malfoy, and Harry knew, just by his tone, that Malfoy was sneering. "Perhaps this will make you more confident." He moved toward Borgin and was blocked from view by the cabinet. Harry, Ron and Hermione shuffled sideways to try and keep him in sight, but all they could see was Borgin, looking very frightened. "Tell anyone," said Malfoy, "and there will be retribution. You know Fenrir Greyback? He's a family friend. He'll be dropping in from time to time to make sure you're giving the problem your full attention." It seemed to me that for Draco to have indicated the bite on his arm and then follow up with "You know Fenrir Greyback?" was almost a non sequitur. Why wouldn't he have said something like, "You know who gave me this? Fenrir Greyback. He's a family friend..." And then it hit me, why IMO this is nonsensical. The cases we know of where children have been bitten by Fenrir, Lupin and a five year-old child who died, their families angered Fenrir. There was no "family friend" connection. Having a child bitten is punative. I just can't imagine Borgin taking the threat, "Hey, I'll send the guy who bit me after you" seriously. Besides, what does a werewolf bite look like? Like something with big teeth got ahold of Draco's arm? Bill's wounds are remarkable because they are cursed and can't be healed away; typical werewolf bite, I'd imagine; but I hardly think that werewolves are the only possible source of large, cursed bites. The next reason this doesn't work for me is that I think it has yet to happen. More specifically, I don't think we'd be seeing the same old swaggering Draco on the train to Hogwarts if he'd been bitten already. I think he'd be hiding in St. Mungos, having a nervous breakdown in the room next to Lockhart. I went back and looked in PS/SS and it isn't just movie contamination, as I'd feared: when Harry, Neville and Draco are assigned Forbidden Forest duty with Hagrid, Draco's spoken concern about going in there is -you guessed it- werewolves. It's probably the form the boggart took for him in his 3rd year. John Granger (an uncle of Hermione's?) claims Malfoy's avoidance of the sight of Greyback on the tower as Dumbledore is asking about Malfoy's having "invited" him into the school where his friends are as evidence for Malfoy's having already been bitten, but I see it as just one more manifestation of Malfoy's already established fear of werewolves. The last reason this doesn't work for me is that it is unnecessary. There is enough going on with Malfoy in HBP; having him dealing with getting the Vanishing Cabinet fixed, becoming an assassin with the world's greatest wizard as his target, AND being a newly (do you say fledged if it's fur to which you refer?) um, created, werewolf is just gratuitous. The signs of fatigue, etc., we see in Malfoy are easily attributed to what we now KNOW he had on his plate. YMMV, this is just IMHO. Sandy, aka msbeadsley, who will want serious Divination credit if and when she turns out to be right and John Granger turns out wrong. *"...Greyback will bite Draco before it's over, turning him into something he's always feared and forcing the Malfoys in the end to take up campaigning for civil rights for the marginalized..." From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Sep 1 03:45:11 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 03:45:11 -0000 Subject: Not a Dark Mark ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139254 > Valky: > ......... why don't we call it a Werewolf bite ? Sandy: > Actually, it gave me chills...but mostly because I posted the idea > of Greyback biting Malfoy (shame on me, I'm so mean) as part of my > Book 7 wish list Valky: Ooooh how vile of you, Sandy. (teehee) I'm sure you weren't alone in hoping for some form of payback to visit the young Malfoy in the future. :D Sandy: > And then it hit me, why IMO this is nonsensical. The cases we know > of where children have been bitten by Fenrir, Lupin and a five > year-old child who died, their families angered Fenrir. There was no > "family friend" connection. Having a child bitten is punative. Valky: Oh, I hate to wet blanket you Sandy here, but that five year old boy was bitten because his parents refused to follow DE orders. The Montgomery Sisters little brother, died because Voldemort sicked Fenrir on him to punish his parents. Sound familiar? As for family friend. Draco might be talking about the werewolf family that he has had to live with during his transformations. These would be the same mysterious people that he moans to Myrtle are bullying him. Sandy: > The next reason this doesn't work for me is that I think it has yet > to happen. More specifically, I don't think we'd be seeing the same > old swaggering Draco on the train to Hogwarts if he'd been bitten > already. Valky: Well we kind of don't actually. During GOF and OOtP Draco as rather more nonchalant about affection from his Slytherin admirers. I found it odd that he laid on Pansy's lap throughout the whole train ride, having his hair stroked, almost like he needed the comfort. It would make sene if he did need the comfort. But it makes less sense if he is proud of wearing the mark of an adult DE, above the ranks of the puny schoolchildren around him. Sandy: > I think he'd be hiding in St. Mungos, having a nervous breakdown in > the room next to Lockhart. Valky: I don't think the nervous breakdown is missing, either. "No one can help me," said Malfoy. His whole body was shking. and later And Harry realised, with a shock so huge it seemed to root him to the spot,that Malfoy was crying - ctually crying - tears streaming down his ple face into the grimy basin. Malfoy gasped and gulped and then, with a great shudder, looked up into the cracked mirror and saw Harry... Tears streaming, whole body shaking, gasping gulping and shuddering, talking to Myrtle!?. Theres definitely a nervous breakdown there, Myrtle even says it's not the first time that he's cried. > Sandy, aka msbeadsley, who will want serious Divination credit if > and when she turns out to be right and John Granger turns out wrong. > > *"...Greyback will bite Draco before it's over, turning him into > something he's always feared and forcing the Malfoys in the end to > take up campaigning for civil rights for the marginalized..." Valky: I agree with you there, Voldemort bit off his own nose with contaminating Draco. Lucius and his family, if they survive, are now quite forced-handedly on the same side as Dumbledore and Harry. From lady.indigo at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 00:36:25 2005 From: lady.indigo at gmail.com (lady.indigo at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:36:25 -0400 Subject: The Gleam! The Gleam! In-Reply-To: References: <63378ee70508311135574eae@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <63378ee70508311736475149a7@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139257 On 8/31/05, lagattalucianese wrote: > it may well be that, over and above Lily's death to protect > him, something going on with/between his parents has imbued > Harry with some magical quality that protects him. I just > don't recall seeing any suggestion of this in the canon. It's more what JKR won't say, how she won't tell us what his parents did for work and why there's that door in the Ministry nobody can look behind. Love is the most powerful force there is, yes? It's the power the Dark Lord knows not. Lily and James certainly understand love, Lily especially. 'Seeing the beauty in others even when they couldn't see it themselves', even though that's movie-speak, was apparently so close to the canon Rowling was thrown. Sounds like at least some form of love to me. And there's definitely sex magic in history, why not love magic? Wouldn't have to be Lily and James' love necessarily, it could be their love for Harry, their friends, or any number of things. But I have a feeling it's key, since there's so much emphasis put on love as a force in general. - Lady Indigo From lady.indigo at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 00:53:28 2005 From: lady.indigo at gmail.com (lady.indigo at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:53:28 -0400 Subject: Draco and Sirius (was Re: Apologies and responsibility) In-Reply-To: References: <63378ee705083101273ff75c67@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <63378ee7050831175351fb1c84@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139258 On 8/31/05, rlai1977 wrote: > Firstly, prejudices not only can 'sometimes', but 'very bloody > often' get passed on from parents to their children. The kid > almost have no chance at all to form an opinion that goes > against that of their parents before he or she has become old > enough to think independently, or to have been exposed to other > opinions from sources they *have reasons to trust*, *especially*, > when the kid loves his parents/has a good relationship with them. And I would usually agree with you there in terms of reality. I just think that in Rowling's mind this is less so. Draco's never been excused from how he acts based on who his father is, though JKR's beginning now to flesh him out a bit with the fact that while he talks a big evil game he doesn't have anything to back it up with. Besides, considering all the pressure put on Draco and the way his father screams at him for being beaten by a Mudblood female, I'm not sure that Draco's home life is as free of problems as you think, whether or not he's been pampered. I also don't know where I ever excused Snape his prejudices, though since he himself was a halfblood and the only time we see him expressing anything along those lines is towards Lily, which I believe was out of embarrassment/trying to save face (wrongly, of course!), I doubt he even had those prejudices very much to begin with. He joined the Death Eaters out of a need for power and attention, in my mind, not because he wanted the wizarding world pure. Not to mention I brought Draco up as completely separate from Snape to begin with. - Lady Indigo From lady.indigo at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 00:58:01 2005 From: lady.indigo at gmail.com (lady.indigo at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:58:01 -0400 Subject: Draco and Sirius (was Re: Apologies and responsibility) In-Reply-To: <63378ee7050831175351fb1c84@mail.gmail.com> References: <63378ee705083101273ff75c67@mail.gmail.com> <63378ee7050831175351fb1c84@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <63378ee7050831175857b79521@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139259 On 8/31/05, lady.indigo at gmail.com wrote: > and the only time we see him expressing anything along those > lines is towards Lily Though it just occured to me (sorry, rushing out the door) that I don't remember every detail of the six books and his remarks to Hermione may have been about blood purity at one point or another. I just don't recall it. Again, though, half-blood himself and certainly couldn't have been taught prejudice at home. If he learned it in Slytherin house it may well have been to save face. Or not. If he did have it I never excused him for it. - Lady Indigo From sue.stanley at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 1 04:50:22 2005 From: sue.stanley at sbcglobal.net (suehpfan1) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 04:50:22 -0000 Subject: The Gleam! The Gleam! In-Reply-To: <63378ee70508311736475149a7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139260 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, wrote: > On 8/31/05, lagattalucianese wrote: > > it may well be that, over and above Lily's death to protect > > him, something going on with/between his parents has imbued > > Harry with some magical quality that protects him. I just > > don't recall seeing any suggestion of this in the canon. > > Lady Indigo: > It's more what JKR won't say, how she won't tell us what his > parents did for work and why there's that door in the Ministry > nobody can look behind. Love is the most powerful force there > is, yes? It's the power the Dark Lord knows not. Lily and James > certainly understand love, Lily especially. 'Seeing the beauty > in others even when they couldn't see it themselves', even > though that's movie-speak, was apparently so close to the canon > Rowling was thrown. Sounds like at least some form of love to me. > And there's definitely sex magic in history, why not love magic? > Wouldn't have to be Lily and James' love necessarily, it could be > their love for Harry, their friends, or any number of things. But > I have a feeling it's key, since there's so much emphasis put on > love as a force in general. > Sue(hpfan) Maybe love is the key. I mean really a key, the only way to get through the door in the MoM is with a pure heart, just like the goblin at Gringotts only used his finger to open the high security vault, Harry would be able to walk through the door because of his heart. Sounds like it might be a really good place to hide. Sue From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Thu Sep 1 04:05:33 2005 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (Jazmyn Concolor) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:05:33 -0700 Subject: My doubts about Snape being Evil/ New in the group In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43167E0D.9020002@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139261 Auryn wrote: >Hi everyone, I am a new member of the group. I am just reading >about what you say about Snape and I cannot believe that he is >bad. Ill explain myself: I think that if Snape is evil, its a >very easy argument to be in a HP book, there has to be something >more. I cannot think its so simple, perhaps its just sadness >because Snape betrayed Dumbledore so deep but I think we have >not seen the whole thing. Something people seem to refuse to consider that in fact, it is Draco that is resposible for Dumbledore's death. Draco decided to join the Death Eater. Draco took the job of attempting to kill Dumbledore. Draco obviously let his mother know.. His mother got Snape involved through an unbreakable curse. The last part of which was promising to complete Draco's assignment if Draco failed. If he doesn't do so, he DIES. If Draco had been able to kill Dumbledore, Snape would not have had to. Obviously Dumbledore knew about the vow and Draco's assignment. Dumbledore would not want Snape dead, so no doubt told him 'kill me if you must to keep the vow you took. You are more important to the cause then I am.' and that's what had Snape so upset when Hagrid overheard him and Dumbledore. Few things short of killing someone he didn't want to kill would have Snape that upset. Draco of course failed in Voldemort's task, then Snape had no choice, Dumbledore begged him, not for his life, but for Snape to save his own life and Draco's. Dumbledore would NEVER beg for his own life. So... Its Draco's fault. Yet everyone wants to blame Snape. Jazmyn From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Thu Sep 1 05:31:54 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 05:31:54 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter and Elizabeth Bennet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139262 Jamie: > > I was rereading portions of the HP books today, trying to make up my > mind on Snape. Now that I'm not reading in such haste to see what > happens next, I realize how much Harry is like Lizzy, main character > of JKR's second-favorite Jane Austen novel. From Harry's initial > (and justified) dislike of Snape, he has been determined to think > the worst of him no matter what, exactly like Lizzy in "Pride and > Prejudice". Also, Snape's pride is comparable to Mr. Darcy's. He > takes great pride in his skills and as the "Half-Blood Prince". > IMO, although his dislike of James may have begun with jealousy, his > hatred stemmed from his pride. He hated James because of attacks > like we see in his worst memory, particularly when his own spells > are used against him. How it must have stung that pride when he > realized he owed James his life. > Gatta: I love this theory that JKR plans to pull a P&P-type reversal in the last book! Jamie: > > Are these parallels intentional? If so, does this mean Harry is > wrong about Snape even now? Of course these two won't be falling in > love, like their counterparts, but will they have to work together? > Gatta: Perhaps as colleagues at Hogwarts? I suppose it would be possible, provided they agreed on a kind of remote mutual acceptance. I don't think Snape likes Harry any more than Harry likes Snape, and probably with better reason, but once having been thrown together and having to cooperate, they might come to some sort of grudging respect for one another. (As for their falling in love--oh, you kid, if you knew fanfic like I know fanfic! grin) Purrs! From zanelupin at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 07:02:37 2005 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 07:02:37 -0000 Subject: Will the DEs die if Voldy does? In-Reply-To: <4315EC45.2080406@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139263 SSSusan wrote: >> Are you thinking that Voldy has set up this death connection... but that the DEs aren't aware of it?<< KJ wrote: > When Voldemort became Vapormort, the Mark faded. To me this > suggests that the Mark is directly tied to Voldemort's health > and/or magical status. In the pensieve scene in GoF, Bellatrix > said that Voldemort would rise again and that they would be > rewarded for trying to find him. KathyK: The Dark Mark fading could certainly be tied to LV's health or magical status. But that doesn't mean the Death Eaters who wear the Mark are then tied to LV's life or death status. If the Mark was a reflection of LV's existence, and the DE's were tied to it in such an intricate manner, would they not then have been weakened, also, while LV was in his Vapor state? *That* they surely would have noticed, no? Bellatrix has given herself the role of Voldemort's most faithful servant. To me, she believes in her Dark Lord, all the way. Since LV has pointed out several times in the presence of his followers that he has taken measures over the years to ensure his immortality, it stands to reason Bellatrix would have been well aware of this. As she appears to be rather manic in her devotion to LV, I do not doubt she believes he cannot have died at Godric's Hollow. The Dark Lord has guarded against it. If he says he cannot die, he has not died, although he has disappeared. Thus she continues searching for Voldemort and knows she will be rewarded for remaining faithful. KJ wrote: > In the Flesh, Blood, and Bone chapter, Voldemort accuses them of > believing that he is "broken" and "gone" but dead is not > mentioned. He obviously believes that all of them would have known > that he was not dead. Lucius actually said that he had been > waiting for word, or any sign of his whereabouts. Basically his > excuse was that he didn't know where to look. KathyK: I agree with you Voldemort does not believe his DE's would consider(or, at least he implies they better not have considered) that he had died. Which is why he never says 'dead' in reference to himself. Of course he would expect his supposedly loyal followers would believe he had indeed safeguarded against death. However, just because *he* thinks the Death Eaters knew he was alive in some form, doesn't mean they actually did. They may have, they may not have. It doesn't really matter, because none of them is stupid enough to *say,* "Yeah, I didn't come looking for you because I thought baby Harry put you in your grave. I didn't believe for one second you'd actually succeeded in your mad quest for immortality. My bad." No, they're taking their cues from LV. He says he's taken steps to prevent his own death. There he stands, clearly alive. He uses words like "gone." Of course they're not going to utter the word "dead" in reference to him. That might be a little suicidal. Might get a little more than a few seconds of Cruciatus that Avery got. KJ wrote: > I don't think that the DEs are told that if V. dies, they do as > well, although it would certainly encourage them to look after him > with considerably more devotion if they did know. > It would allow JKR to tie up a lot of loose ends in a hurry. KathyK: I agree with you and SSSusan that this Dark Mark Mass Murder would be something LV might consider, but I think Kemper is right: "For Voldy to place some Voldy-destroyed Destruct button on the Dark Mark, would mean that Voldy admits, even to himself, the possibility that he will/can fail." ---Kemper, Message 139241 There's no way Voldemort is admitting to himself the idea he might die. His entire life is built around eluding his end. But that being said, I wonder how easily this sort of thing would work into the story, were it true. I suppose it could help to tie up any loose ends, but I wonder how many of us would be scratching our heads in the wake of such a thing, wondering why JKR just suddenly dropped that bomb on us after six books? I don't think the Death Eaters would have willingly signed up for a Dark Mark of their very own if it meant their continued life would depend on LV living. Some may have (the Lestranges, for example) but I do not think all would have such absolute faith in Voldemort. So I will now leave aside the "Death Eaters knew all along they were toast if LV died" scenario and go with this being Voldemort's dirty little secret. How would she reveal this secret to us? Would LV tell Harry in his great Tell All scene before he's finished? A nice little subplot Harry & Co stumble over in their Horcrux search, leading to them warning the DE's and trying to find a way to stop it? Would we not find out until after LV's defeated and they start finding DE bodies everywhere, and it will suddenly dawn on them what happened? I don't know how she would work that into the plot in any convincing way. I'm pretty much hoping not all the bad guys are killed or have changes of heart. Don't get me wrong, I want Harry to save the day, but I think it's too easy an ending to simply off all the Death Eaters in one fell swoop. And as someone who is quite Siriusly Snapey mentioned to me off- list, what of our Marked Man, Severus Snape, should his life depend upon LV staying alive? KathyK, just saying hello to everybody From maliksthong at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 07:28:44 2005 From: maliksthong at yahoo.com (Chys Lattes) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 07:28:44 -0000 Subject: The Opposite of a Horcrux Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139264 What is the opposite of a horcrux? I think that's the significance of Lily's sacrifice in her love for Harry, and his special eyes. Laugh at me if I'm wrong. Well, anyway, a horcrux is where you kill someone to extend your own life. The opposite, couldn't it be, to give yourself up to extend the life of another? In one case your soul is split with the death being taken and in the other perhaps some bit of your soul is added to the protected soul? (Just a wild idea I added as an afterthought, but I do wonder if Harry was born with Lily's eyes or if it's the transformation that I believe is associated with a horcrux; LV's being the opposite- his becoming more like an animal and less human looking.) Since a horcrux is something that's taboo and all of that, wouldn't the opposite of it be the same, as it's a similar principle? I don't think either idea would be a topic of conversation at Hogwarts anyway, as one would naturally lead into the other being associated with opposites and that could be why it's something that LV didn't know about. Just wondering. I know for fact others have probably thought those same lines as we're all going nuts racking our brains for the answers, so if you have, that's awesome. Chys, thinking too much and rereading HBP for a different take. From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Thu Sep 1 09:55:51 2005 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 10:55:51 +0100 (BST) Subject: An (interesting ?) parallel Message-ID: <20050901095551.79413.qmail@web86205.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139265 First of all, the usual disclaimer: I believe JKR wrote Dumbledore's death scene very carefully, choosing every word to allow an ambiguous interpretation. I can only discuss Snape under the conditional probability that he is still a Dumbledore man. (Otherwise he is not a character worth arguing about, he goes straight to the last circle of Hell). The interesting thing for me is that many people here argue that even if in book 6 he was acting upon some plan of Dumbledore, he is still evil beyond redemption and forgiveness, because he'd delivered Potters to Voldemort. That's the point I'd like to discuss, and that's the point which has a possible parallel in "Chronicles of Narnia". In there, Edmund delivers his own sisters and brother to the White Witch. Who wants to kill them because of a prophecy saying they can defeat her. Not some anonymous people, not his childhood enemy, his own brother and sisters. If we judge him by the same moral law people here seem to judge Snape, then Aslan should've killed the little bastard on the spot, never mind dying for him. Irene ___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 11:13:18 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 11:13:18 -0000 Subject: It's over, Snape is evil (was: Dumbledore and Snape again) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139266 "Matt"wrote: > So are you hypothesizing that Snape modified Kreacher's memory? > Dumbledore says that he needed to use Legilimency to get the story out > of Kreacher, but I guess the hypothesis would also include Dumbledore > failing to detect the memory modification. Finwitch: Yes - because Dumbledore told Harry that it required very *Deep* Legilimency to get the truth out of Morfin. Dumbledore just didn't go that far with Kreacher because he had to get to the Ministry in a hurry, he trusts Snape etc... However, as it's Narcissa who's there when Snape brags about that - the one Kreacher supposedly contacted - she'd *know* Snape was lying. And it is possible she had told Bellatrix about Kreacher earlier... It'd just be too *obvious* a lie for Snape to be uttering there, so I must conclude it is the truth and Dumbledore was - at least in this - tricked by Snape. Of course, if Snape tricks Dumbledore in one thing, why not all the way... Finwitch From muellem at bc.edu Thu Sep 1 11:19:46 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 11:19:46 -0000 Subject: If R.A.B. is Regulus... puzzle pieces falling into place. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139267 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > In light of the recent Regulus is RAB confirmation rumour. I have > taken the liberty of running away with the assumption that it's true, > and come up with a theory. > > First is to establish the date of Reggies death. In OOtP he i said to > have died "some fifteen years previous". A general place in time which > coincides remarkably! with the attack on Godrics Hollow. > > the 15 years earlier was in 1980 - not 1981. So, Regulus couldn't be at GH that night in Oct. of 1981. Harry was at Grimmald Place, during the summer of 1995 in OotP, cleaning the house when Sirius stated that. I have a bigger theory about Regulus, which I posted over a month ago and I'm sticking to it. Deals with why Snape turned. colebiancardi From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Sep 1 11:41:47 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 11:41:47 -0000 Subject: If R.A.B. is Regulus... puzzle pieces falling into place. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139268 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > > In light of the recent Regulus is RAB confirmation rumour. I have > > taken the liberty of running away with the assumption that it's > > true, and come up with a theory. > > > > First is to establish the date of Reggies death. In OOtP he i said > > to have died "some fifteen years previous". A general place in > > time which coincides remarkably! with the attack on Godrics Hollow. > > > > > > the 15 years earlier was in 1980 - not 1981. So, Regulus couldn't > be at GH that night in Oct. of 1981. Harry was at Grimmald Place, > during the summer of 1995 in OotP, cleaning the house when Sirius > stated that. I have a bigger theory about Regulus, which I posted > over a month ago and I'm sticking to it. Deals with why Snape > turned. > colebiancardi Valky: Drats foiled again! I was basing it on Harry having turned sixteen in the year of OOtP. On reveiw, I wasn't thinking clearly was I? Well I guess I will have to find *yet another* theory as to why the Lestranges thought the Longbottoms knew where Voldemort was.. Sigh. Valky From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Thu Sep 1 06:39:17 2005 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 06:39:17 -0000 Subject: Harry's character development In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139269 quick_silver71: > > Harry is already a good dueler. bboyminn: > I'm not sure where you get this. Harry's dueling skill has never > been more than adequate. At best, he as stumbled through each duel > with a bit of luck and little more. > > In his duels with Draco, Harry has just scraped by with luck. Draco > and Harry are about an equal match, although in the duel in the > bathroom in HBP, Draco seems to have the upper hand until Harry > cast the 'Sectumsempra'. Of course, Harry was on target so > regardless of what curse he cast he would have had the advantage, > but let's not forget that up until that point Draco was standing > and Harry was on the floor stuggling. quick_silver71: The luck agrument is a bit of a gasp for me because Harry beats Draco hands down in terms of reflexes not luck. In the time it takes Draco to say "Cruci-" Harry says "Sectumsempra"...and that starting the spell after Draco!! Harry manages to hit virtually every DE in Hogwarts with some sort of spell at the end of HBP with the exception of Snape. Yet McGonagall, Lupin, Tonks, Ron, Ginny, Neville etc had not managed to elminate a single DE (after Harry arrives McGonagall finally defeats her DE)...that was done by another DE (a AK from one DE hit another). Once Harry arrives he drops Fenrir, Amycus, and the enormous blond DE (who he hexes while still laying on the floor...so much for bad aim!!) If Snape had not intervened there is a good chance that Harry could have captured/defeated every member of DEs sent into Hogwarts. bboyminn: > I don't see Snape 'deploying everything'. Using everything - yes, > but 'deploying everything' in the context you imply - no. What I > see Snape doing is defeating Harry at every turn and he does so > easily. Snape has higher priorities, saving Draco and getting the > heck out of there; Harry is more like an annoying tedious fly that > is bothering Snape. Snape's superiority over Harry seems easy and > effortless to me. quick_silver71: Yet Harry has beat Snape...twice. Once in PoA and once in HBP. Clearly Sbape has the advantage over Harry at the end of HBP but Harry was able to beat an emotional Snape in PoA so I think that it's a reversal of fortune (and a warning about emotional states). Harry is better then the DEs now and he is certainly as good a fighter as McGonagall or Lupin. With the exception of Snape and Voldemort is there a wizard walking that can call themself a superior warrior to Harry Potter? quick_silver71 From HP_Fan55 at msn.com Thu Sep 1 06:59:18 2005 From: HP_Fan55 at msn.com (budbondietti) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 06:59:18 -0000 Subject: Possibly another slant? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139270 Having read a lot of the comments, I'd like to add my two cents worth. I do believe that Snape AK'ed DD but it was not for the completion of Draco's task or the UV. I believe that Snape fulfilled his committment to Narcissa when he healed Draco after the sectumsempra curse was performed by Harry. I believe that Draco's assignment from the DL was to create a means to get his DE's into Hogwarts for a confrontation with DD to stop his efforts to find the Horcruxes which he found out how DD was progressing by using Harry's vision. I find it hard to believe that the DL would not utilize any means of succeeding after all of the past failures. I also have a problem believing that the DL would assign such a gigantic assignment (doing in DD) to an unproven teen. Completion of the path from B&B to Hogwarts would be a start to prove Draco's worth and avenge his fathers incarceration. These are my thoughts. Bud From pipes814 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 11:25:58 2005 From: pipes814 at yahoo.com (Jamie) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 11:25:58 -0000 Subject: The Opposite of a Horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139271 Chys Lattes wrote: > Well, anyway, a horcrux is where you kill someone to extend your own > life. The opposite, couldn't it be, to give yourself up to extend the > life of another? > I don't think either idea would be a topic of conversation at > Hogwarts anyway, as one would naturally lead into the other being > associated with opposites and that could be why it's something that > LV didn't know about. Jamie: Wow. I love this theory! It just seems to fit perfectly. Wasn't Lily known for her Charms work? Couldn't she have invented the opposite of a horcrux herself? She could have cast the spell as she was being AK'd. JKR has made clear that nothing like what happened to Harry has ever happened before, which would be why LV wouldn't know about it. Even if the idea was mentioned in a book somewhere, he'd have seen the word "sacrifice" and immediately shut the book. From fabian.peng-karrholm at chalmers.se Thu Sep 1 13:15:47 2005 From: fabian.peng-karrholm at chalmers.se (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fabian_Peng_K=E4rrholm?=) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 15:15:47 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Opposite of a Horcrux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4316FF03.9030508@chalmers.se> No: HPFGUIDX 139272 Chys Lattes wrote: > > >>Well, anyway, a horcrux is where you kill someone to extend your own >>life. The opposite, couldn't it be, to give yourself up to extend the >>life of another? >> >> > > >Jamie: >Wow. I love this theory! It just seems to fit perfectly. > > I also love this idea, and I want to point out that JKR:s mentioning of the important of Harry having his mother's eyes fits into the theory perfectly. Since that could then be where the anti-horcrux was put. /Fabian From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Sep 1 13:40:35 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 13:40:35 -0000 Subject: It's over, Snape is evil (was: Dumbledore and Snape again) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139273 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: Finwitch: > Dumbledore believed Kreacher did it by telling one of these Black > Sisters about Sirius' relationship to Harry and yet so that Kreacher > was unable to betray them totally... (But - there was no such > restrictions on Snape - apart from his not being the Secret Keeper - > and the person Kreacher had supposedly been conversing with, was > sitting there in that very room) - so um - I don't think Harry was > all *that* wrong, after all... > > I'd say that Snape framed Kreacher - even as Tom Riddle framed Morfin. > > Finwitch Hickengruendler: But we *know* that Kreacher was in it. It was him, and not Snape, who told Harry in the fire, that Sirius had left Grimmauld Place. Therefore Kreacher was not blamed, he was a part in the conspiration. It also must have been Kreacher, who wounded Buckbeak, since Snape was in Hogwarts all the time and had no opportunity to do it. And if Kreacher had no contact with Narcissa, and it was all just a fake memory planted by Snape, than who should have told him to wound the Hippogriff and lie to Harry? From Nanagose at aol.com Thu Sep 1 13:46:46 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 13:46:46 -0000 Subject: The Opposite of a Horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139274 Chys: > I think that's the significance of Lily's sacrifice in her love for > Harry, and his special eyes. Laugh at me if I'm wrong. > > Well, anyway, a horcrux is where you kill someone to extend your > own life. The opposite, couldn't it be, to give yourself up to > extend the life of another? Christina: This is a really interesting idea, and I *know* someone has posted here before on it, but for the life of me, I just can't find it. Someone earlier brought up an idea that was a little looser than yours, but that suggested that when someone you love dies (I'm not sure if they stipulated that they die for you), part of their soul kind of goes to you so your is built up. This is in contrast with murder and horcrux-making, which splits up your soul. The poster suggested that the deaths of Lily, Sirius, and Dumbledore are all making Harry stronger. I'm sure I'm not doing the original poster any justice at all- I'm just saying this from a vague memory I have of reading the post a few weeks ago, so I might be getting most of it wrong (on an extreme side note, I really wish Yahoo! Groups would think up a better search engine, because it's really impossible to find anything on this one). The only real problem I have with this scenario (which I like, because JKR does tend to deal with pairs of opposite things), is probably something that I'm going to have a problem with no matter how JKR resolves the issue. JKR has been adamant about the fact that nobody has *ever* survived an AK before Harry. Ever. This is hard to imagine in a world where people "dodge the bullet," so to speak, all the time, but it remains a huge problem when postulating why Lily's sacrifice meant so much. If giving up your life to extend another's DOES create some sort of opposite-Horcrux, then why aren't there more instances of this? Instances of people jumping in front of their loved ones, pushing them out of the way of danger, and offering their lives for them (haven't we all heard "Take me instead!" stories?) are common, so shouldn't there be a lot of this sort of stuff happening? Or maybe it is happening, but the person left alive never realizes the protection they have? Chys: > (Just a wild idea I added as an afterthought, but I do wonder if > Harry was born with Lily's eyes or if it's the transformation that I > believe is associated with a horcrux; LV's being the opposite- his > becoming more like an animal and less human looking.) Christina: This is a really neat idea, but I'm a little hesitant about it. I can't find anywhere in the books where Sirius specifically comments on Harry's eyes (I could have sworn that he has, but maybe I'm just channeling the PoA movie, shame on me), but I still think that he would have noticed if Harry's eyes changed. Since we know for sure that he was at Harry's christening, we know he saw him as a baby. If Harry's eyes were originally brown or something, I would think that Sirius would notice the change to bright green eyes (that are obviously his mother's). Christina From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 13:58:37 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 13:58:37 -0000 Subject: An (interesting ?) parallel In-Reply-To: <20050901095551.79413.qmail@web86205.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139275 Irene Mikhlin wrote: > The interesting thing for me is that many people here > argue that even if in book 6 he was acting upon some > plan of Dumbledore, he is still evil beyond redemption > and forgiveness, because he'd delivered Potters to > Voldemort. > That's the point I'd like to discuss, and that's the > point which has a possible parallel in "Chronicles of > Narnia". In there, Edmund delivers his own sisters and > brother to the White Witch. Who wants to kill them > because of a prophecy saying they can defeat her. > Not some anonymous people, not his childhood enemy, > his own brother and sisters. > If we judge him by the same moral law people here seem > to judge Snape, then Aslan should've killed the little > bastard on the spot, never mind dying for him. Alla: OK, here is the way I view it. Never managed to make myself like Narnia, by the way. Way too many direct allegories for my taste. :-) Anyways, I read it quite some time ago,so could be wrong, but haven't we actually SAW Edmund expressing remorse to his sisters and brother? See, so many people insist that Harry should apologise to Snape for looking into pensieve. What do you think - does Snape owe Harry a BIG apology for being complicit in his parents death? May have made all the difference for me. :-) Let's say for the sake of argument I agree with you - Snape genuinely turned to Dumbledore, right? SO, he decided to behave as decent person. Wouldn't that assume that after helping delivering Potters to Voldemort, he OWES Harry and (maybe many nameless people, whom he hurt as DE, but we only talking about Harry now)a debt of such EPIC proportions, that he would never repay it? Right, so what makes me disgusted is the way Snape supposedly pays this debt ( that is of course if he IS DD man). I don't think that if he was watching over Harry, he behaved like a hero, I think he did what any half-decent person is supposed to do, morally obligated to do, etc. Mind you, I do NOT suggest that Snape grovel at Harry's feet, not at all, I am only suggesting Snape .... gasp.... I don't know ... ignored Harry more. I don't think he had any moral ground, ANY high ground in fact to demand respect from Harry, I don't think he had any ground to belittle James in front of Harry. Whatever sins James committed to Snape, and I am not quite sure whether they WERE that numerous and that serious, Snape helped James to die. That in my mind forecloses any right Snape may have had to talk about James, and of course as far as I am concerned Snape never had a right to treat Harry the way he does. But knowing how much misery Snape cost Harry, it makes his attitude ( IMO only of course) ten times more despicable. Right, so to some up, I don't think that Snape should be denied religious forgiveness, if he is genuinely sorry, but the way he behaves towards Harry makes me doubt that he is sorry indeed. JMO, Alla From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Sep 1 14:19:35 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:19:35 -0000 Subject: The Opposite of a Horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139276 > Chys: > > Well, anyway, a horcrux is where you kill someone to extend your > > own life. The opposite, couldn't it be, to give yourself up to > > extend the life of another? > Christina: > > This is a really interesting idea, and I *know* someone has posted > here before on it, but for the life of me, I just can't find it. > Someone earlier brought up an idea that was a little looser than > yours, but that suggested that when someone you love dies (I'm not > sure if they stipulated that they die for you), part of their soul > kind of goes to you so your is built up. Jen: You're thinking about Del's post, who had a similar theory in mid- August. Here it is in case anyone wants to re-read it: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137502 From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 14:32:44 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:32:44 -0000 Subject: F&G's shop... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139277 > > auburn: > I noticed that the Weasleys were able to spend more money in Diagon > Alley this time around (Ron buying several items at his brothers' > shop and Ginny buying the Pygmy Puffskein, for example) and assumed it > was due to Arthur's promotion to a more prestigious and responsible > position. Finwitch: Except that Ron didn't get to really buy them! He expected Fred&George to *give* them to him... just because he's their brother. (Fred was willing to cut off a Knut for him, but...) And Ron *can't* have asked his parents because Molly definately would not approve (although it is possible F&G sent him that stuff in March for a birthday-present - unless they took part in paying for the watch). Ginny wanting a pet is quite another matter. I loved the way F&G refuse to accept coin from Harry (due to that startup loan) but insist on having payment from Ron... and then outright refuse to sell certain stuff to Ginny... I think those shield-clothes could be a real advantage as well. As for now, Harry has *plenty* of places where he can go to from the Dursleys. Up a jokeshop with F&G, the Burrow, GP 12... and maybe the GH can be repaired.. and where was Sirius' other apartment? Not to mention that he has plenty of cash to rent a room from Leaky Cauldron... Finwitch From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Thu Sep 1 14:45:15 2005 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 15:45:15 +0100 (BST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: An (interesting ?) parallel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050901144515.70974.qmail@web86211.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139279 --- dumbledore11214 wrote: > Anyways, I read it quite some time ago,so could be > wrong, but > haven't we actually SAW Edmund expressing remorse to > his sisters > and brother? Actually, I don't believe we did. He expressed remorse to Aslan, and then Aslan told everyone something to the tune of "we will not speak of what happened ever again". But Edmund was the bravest one in the battle, and he was the key player in defeating the Witch. So, the words are cheap, but the deeds speak louder. :-) > See, so many people insist that Harry should > apologise to Snape for > looking into pensieve. What do you think - does > Snape owe Harry a > BIG apology for being complicit in his parents > death? Yes, right after the battle ends. Or right after Harry stops insisting on his right to keep his mind wide open for Voldemort, whichever comes first. > SO, he decided to behave as decent person. Wouldn't > that assume > that after helping delivering Potters to Voldemort, > he OWES Harry > and (maybe many nameless people, whom he hurt as DE, > but we only > talking about Harry now)a debt of such EPIC > proportions, that he > would never repay it? I don't like the idea of a debt you could never repay. Even if they were not in the middle of the war, even if it was just a school situation. I can't imagine Dumbledore installing him as a teacher, knowing his ways as a teacher, but expecting him to change it all specifically for Harry. I'm struggling to make myself clear here. Imagine a couple, where one of the partners cheated on the other. So the cheater repents, and the other partner decides to forgive and forget. It's a very difficult thing to do. Lots of times the couple divorces anyway, because the wronged side holds the past sins over your head forever. You know, the unspoken threat: 'Don't you dare to criticise me in any way after what you've done to me'. To bring it back to Hogwarts, if Dumbledore accepted Snape's defection from Voldie under condition that Snape will devote his life to repaying that debt, I guess Snape would have rather committed suicide there and then, because that's would not be life anyway. Irene ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From sherriola at earthlink.net Thu Sep 1 15:01:04 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:01:04 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] An (interesting ?) parallel In-Reply-To: <20050901095551.79413.qmail@web86205.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004f01c5af05$fa9456d0$1b3b79a5@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 139280 -----Original Message----- From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Irene Mikhlin The interesting thing for me is that many people here argue that even if in book 6 he was acting upon some plan of Dumbledore, he is still evil beyond redemption and forgiveness, because he'd delivered Potters to Voldemort. That's the point I'd like to discuss, and that's the point which has a possible parallel in "Chronicles of Narnia". In there, Edmund delivers his own sisters and brother to the White Witch. Who wants to kill them because of a prophecy saying they can defeat her. Not some anonymous people, not his childhood enemy, his own brother and sisters. If we judge him by the same moral law people here seem to judge Snape, then Aslan should've killed the little bastard on the spot, never mind dying for him. Irene Sherry now: I see a huge difference between Edwin and Snape. mainly a huge difference of age. Edwin was a child, far younger than Harry in HBP. Snape is an adult, in his 30's somewhere. No, i don't equate the two things. And Edwin's siblings didn't die. Sherry From kjones at telus.net Thu Sep 1 15:02:53 2005 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 08:02:53 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Will the DEs die if Voldy does? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4317181D.10804@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 139281 KathyK wrote: > KathyK: > > The Dark Mark fading could certainly be tied to LV's health or > magical status. But that doesn't mean the Death Eaters who wear the > Mark are then tied to LV's life or death status. If the Mark was a > reflection of LV's existence, and the DE's were tied to it in such > an intricate manner, would they not then have been weakened, also, > while LV was in his Vapor state? *That* they surely would have > noticed, no? KJ writes: Actually that is a very good point. One would wonder why, if he went to that much trouble, he didn't set it up so that he could draw power from them. It could be answered in his statement that he was so weak as to be helpless and was wandless, and so, unable to do so. So far JKR has not drawn a lot of attention to the Marks. They are just floating around out there and I think that they will have more importance in the last book. > KathyK: > However, just because *he* thinks the Death Eaters knew he was alive > in some form, doesn't mean they actually did. They may have, they > may not have. It doesn't really matter, because none of them is > stupid enough to *say,* "Yeah, I didn't come looking for you because > I thought baby Harry put you in your grave. I didn't believe for > one second you'd actually succeeded in your mad quest for > immortality. My bad." No, they're taking their cues from LV. He > says he's taken steps to prevent his own death. There he stands, > clearly alive. He uses words like "gone." Of course they're not > going to utter the word "dead" in reference to him. That might be a > little suicidal. Might get a little more than a few seconds of > Cruciatus that Avery got. KJ writes: Here, I can't agree with you entirely. If no one knew that Voldemort wasn't really dead, Dumbledore wouldn't have worried about protecting Harry, he would not have started wondering why V. wasn't dead and started horcrux hunting. I think a lot of the plot hinges on knowing that V. wasn't dead. Also, if V. was so convinced that he could not die, he would not have spent decades of his life making bloody well sure of it. He would have been vulnerable for years while in his horcrux making phase, and even afterward, he avoided Dumbledore. Only a person who believes that he can die, fears it. KathyK > How would she reveal this secret to us? Would LV tell Harry in > his great Tell All scene before he's finished? A nice little subplot > Harry & Co stumble over in their Horcrux search, leading to > them warning the DE's and trying to find a way to stop it? Would we > not find out until after LV's defeated and they start finding DE > bodies everywhere, and it will suddenly dawn on them what > happened? I don't know how she would work that into the plot in > any convincing way. KJ writes: I think most of the key characters will end up killed in the final confrontation as Harry gets closer to penetrating the protective circle around Voldemort. It just amuses me to think of the obits in the aftermath as we find out that some unexpected people has just dropped dead or burned up like Dumbledore's hand. It has a certain elegance, and JKR can rest assured that she can never be forced into writing a sequel. > And as someone who is quite Siriusly Snapey mentioned to me off- > list, what of our Marked Man, Severus Snape, should his life depend > upon LV staying alive? KJ writes: Snape is my favourite character, hands down. There are innumerable ways that he can get himself killed sacrificing himself to the cause. Considering that my take on the end of the book places him in a position of strength, as an assassin, in order for him to truly sacrifice himself for the cause, he will be killed by his own foolishness in taking the Mark in the first place and by all the wrong choices of his life, rather than Harry. KJ who has been wrong about almost everything else so far and see no reason why I should not be wrong about this. It is much more interesting than anything else I could be or should be doing. From sherriola at earthlink.net Thu Sep 1 15:20:37 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:20:37 -0700 Subject: Snape, Kreacher and the death of sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <005001c5af08$b5a696c0$1b3b79a5@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 139282 > I'd say that Snape framed Kreacher - even as Tom Riddle framed Morfin. > > Finwitch Hickengruendler: But we *know* that Kreacher was in it. It was him, and not Snape, who told Harry in the fire, that Sirius had left Grimmauld Place. Therefore Kreacher was not blamed, he was a part in the conspiration. It also must have been Kreacher, who wounded Buckbeak, since Snape was in Hogwarts all the time and had no opportunity to do it. And if Kreacher had no contact with Narcissa, and it was all just a fake memory planted by Snape, than who should have told him to wound the Hippogriff and lie to Harry? Sherry now: Actually, I was just planning to write a post on this very subject. Recently, I received the hard copy braille version of HBP. There's a difference for me when I actually read something in braille with my fingers, than when I listen to it. When I first read Spinner's End on audio, I was so shocked by Snape's claim to have given Voldemort the info that led to the murder of Vance, that I sort of didn't take in the words about Sirius. However, when I was reading the same chapter the other day in braille, and my fingers came across the words: "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 Emmeline Vance, and it certainly helped dispose of Sirius Black ..." Those words leapt off the page and just about hit me in the face! What, I shrieked, bringing my dog running. Oh! My! Gosh! I don't think Snape's claim to have *helped* dispose of Sirius negates Kreacher's complicity. Kreacher did indeed wound BuckBeak and lie to Harry. But how does that remove any guilt from Snape? We don't know what information Snape could have given, but he certainly knows enough that would be damning. He knows that Sirius is an animagus. He knows that Sirius is Harry's godfather and guardian by his parents' choice. He knows that Sirius and Harry are very close. He even knows, after the argument with Sirius in OOTP, that Harry will leap in to defend Sirius. Oh, he had enough ammunition he could have passed on to create a perfect hoax to bring Harry running to the rescue. Narcissa did not object to Snape's claim. i have read those paragraphs over and over. She never says anything like, "No, Sevvy, Kreacher gave us all the info." She accepts his statement, and so does Bella. Though I was already confident that Snape had murdered Dumbledore, this passage still gave me chills and caused me to wonder what the heck Harry will do when or if he learns it. He now blames Snape for the loss of his parents and Dumbledore, but what if he learns Snape also contributed to the death of Sirius? Not in Harry's grief induced blame right after the death, but that Snape actually gave Voldemort information that led to Sirius and Harry being set up. How could Harry ever forgive Snape? I don't think any reasonable thinking person could forgive those three things. I am certainly more convinced than ever that Snape did indeed murder Dumbledore and is not now, if he ever was, Dumbledore's man. Sherry From muellem at bc.edu Thu Sep 1 15:24:17 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 15:24:17 -0000 Subject: An (interesting ?) parallel In-Reply-To: <004f01c5af05$fa9456d0$1b3b79a5@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139283 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com] > On Behalf Of Irene Mikhlin > > > If we judge him by the same moral law people here seem > to judge Snape, then Aslan should've killed the little > bastard on the spot, never mind dying for him. > > Irene > > > > > Sherry now: > > I see a huge difference between Edwin and Snape. mainly a huge difference > of age. Edwin was a child, far younger than Harry in HBP. Snape is an > adult, in his 30's somewhere. No, i don't equate the two things. And > Edwin's siblings didn't die. well, Snape is an adult in his 30's now. But at the time of the prophecy, he was what - 18 or 19 years old? Also, he also turned to Dumbledore before the Potter's died. How do you know he didn't try to stop LV from killing them? Snape didn't physically deliver the Potter's to LV - but he was instrumental in delivering the message. I guess the old saying is right - People will SHOOT the messager. colebiancardi From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Thu Sep 1 16:09:59 2005 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:09:59 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Opposite of a Horcrux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139284 >Christina: >This is a really neat idea, but I'm a little hesitant about it. I >can't find anywhere in the books where Sirius specifically comments on >Harry's eyes (I could have sworn that he has, but maybe I'm just >channeling the PoA movie, shame on me), but I still think that he >would have noticed if Harry's eyes changed. Since we know for sure >that he was at Harry's christening, we know he saw him as a baby. If >Harry's eyes were originally brown or something, I would think that >Sirius would notice the change to bright green eyes (that are >obviously his mother's). >Christina The thing is, infants eyes are often a generic blue-grey in color, especially when they are newborns. Infants who will have darker eyes may already have them, but infants who will have lighter eyes are often born with a kind of steel-blue color in their eyes. So Sirius could have seen the infant Harry and the older Harry and not have been particularly impressed with the change in eye color. Interesting idea. Laura Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net From pipes814 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 14:08:26 2005 From: pipes814 at yahoo.com (Jamie) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:08:26 -0000 Subject: The Opposite of a Horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139285 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spotsgal" wrote: > This is a really neat idea, but I'm a little hesitant about it. I > can't find anywhere in the books where Sirius specifically comments on > Harry's eyes (I could have sworn that he has, but maybe I'm just > channeling the PoA movie, shame on me), but I still think that he > would have noticed if Harry's eyes changed. Since we know for sure > that he was at Harry's christening, we know he saw him as a baby. If > Harry's eyes were originally brown or something, I would think that > Sirius would notice the change to bright green eyes (that are > obviously his mother's). > > > Christina Jamie: Babies aren't necessarily born with their permanent eye color. It's perfectly normal for a baby born with brown eyes to change to green within a year or two. Also, the splitting of the soul is considered "against nature" according to Slughorn. It may still be an awful thing even if done for noble reasons. So, what if Lily did not split her soul for Harry, but instead the whole thing is inside him? That must affect his appearance. Plus, remember what JKR said about the POA movie foreshadowing things from the final two books? Perhaps she shudderd slightly at the scene where Sirius tells Harry that his parents live on inside him. From carodave92 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 14:10:12 2005 From: carodave92 at yahoo.com (carodave92) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:10:12 -0000 Subject: Not a Dark Mark ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139286 > Valky wrote: > > Throughout HBP Draco starts to look more and more sickly. He keeps > disappearing. In Borgin and Burkes he shows Borgin something that > frightens him, Harry thinks its a Dark Mark, but how can we be sure. > Can we even really be sure that a Dark Mark would frighten Borgin? > When Snape showed Fudge his burning Dark Mark, it didn't frighten him > much, and there are many in the WW who don't even know what they are. > Well it could be a Dark Mark, but since there *is* reason for doubt, > then why don't we call it a Werewolf bite ? Carodave: If Draco had been bitten by a werewolf, I think it would be more evident. At the very least, he would disappear every month, at worst, he would transform and attack fellow students or staff. I think he looks pale and sickly due to the pressure of his new job working for V. It must be incredibly stressful every month he doesn't accomplish his goal, knowing that is one step closer to destruction (of him, his family, etc.). How would Borgin even recognize a werewolf bite? Does a werewolf bite have distinguishing characteristics that make it different from a dog bite or another animal's bite? Other than the results of turning the victim into a werewolf of course. Carodave From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Sep 1 16:37:03 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 16:37:03 -0000 Subject: Snape, Kreacher and the death of sirius In-Reply-To: <005001c5af08$b5a696c0$1b3b79a5@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139287 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > > I don't think Snape's claim to have *helped* dispose of Sirius negates > Kreacher's complicity. Kreacher did indeed wound BuckBeak and lie to Harry. > But how does that remove any guilt from Snape? Hickengruendler: It depends on what exactly he has said and done. First of all, as an adequate spy, he has IMO to give some worthy information to both sides, no matter on which one he is. Otherwise, the other side would stop to trust him pretty soon. I think we also have to see the Emmeline Vance information in this light. He did not say, that he delivered Emmeline's head to Voldemort on a silver plate, he just said that he gave informations that led to her death. Maybe he decided to feed Voldemort with some minor stuff about the Order's work, and Voldemort acted on this, and somehow poor Emmeline got in the way and was killed. I don't say that it has to be that way, but I do think it's possible. If Snape didn't give Voldemort any worthy information at all, he would be dead by now. It could have been similar with his informations about Sirius. Maybe he was just asked to confirm Kreacher's informations. I do not doubt that it was Kreacher who got in contact with Narcissa, because someone must have told him to injure Buckbeak at the right time, so that Sirius wasn't already finished mending the hippogriff and able to answer Harry's call from the fire. That does not mean, that Snape couldn't have given some informations as well, or that Snape isn't evil, but Kreacher not contacting Narcissa, as Finwitch suggested, leads IMO to some pretty big plot holes. We don't know what > information Snape could have given, but he certainly knows enough that would > be damning. He knows that Sirius is an animagus. He knows that Sirius is > Harry's godfather and guardian by his parents' choice. Hickengruendler: But Wormtail knew all this as well and probably already told Voldemort. Therefore that wouldn't be any new informations for him. And I must admit, that I never saw why Voldemort having the informations about Sirius really changed all that much. IMO, if Harry had seen Lupin, Moody or Tonks, even the Dursleys being tortured, he would have done the same. Hickengruendler From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 15:08:46 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 15:08:46 -0000 Subject: The Opposite of a Horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139288 Chys wrote: "Well, anyway, a horcrux is where you kill someone to extend your own life. The opposite, couldn't it be, to give yourself up to extend the life of another? " Christina replied: "This is a really interesting idea, and I *know* someone has posted here before on it, but for the life of me, I just can't find it. Someone earlier brought up an idea that was a little looser than yours, but that suggested that when someone you love dies (I'm not sure if they stipulated that they die for you), part of their soul kind of goes to you so your is built up. " Jen answered: "You're thinking about Del's post, who had a similar theory in mid-August. Here it is in case anyone wants to re-read it: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137502" Del replies: Thanks Jen :-) And, huh, I don't like to throw flowers at myself usually, but I have to say that IMO my own theory was not "looser". I worked quite a bit on that one :-). I encourage anyone who is interested in the "Opposite of a Horcrux" theory to go and read my post too. As for a couple of objections that have been raised in this present thread: * The magic behind the creation of a Opposite of a Horcrux wouldn't be taboo at all. Horcruxes are taboo because they are Dark Magic at its worst, they necessarily include murder. The Opposite of a Horcrux would be based on extremely good magic (I posited that it would be based on Love Magic), there's nothing taboo about that, quite the opposite. As for the fear that knowing about the Opposite would make students wonder about the Horcrux, I don't think that's really a concern at Hogwarts, where they couldn't find the information even if they wanted to. * I think the real reason the Opposite of a Horcrux isn't taught at Hogwarts is that Lily is the first one who ever created one. * The reason why Opposites of Horcruxes aren't created more often by people sacrificing themselves is that it necessitates a spell. A Horcrux is not created everytime a wizard kills another wizard. The murder is not the way, it is only the main ingredient. It's a specific spell that creates the Horcrux. Similarly, the self-sacrifice would only be the main ingredient in the creation of an Opposite of a Horcrux, but a spell would be necessary to make it happen. * And finally, about Sirius not mentioning the change in Harry's eyes: we don't know how often Sirius saw Baby!Harry. If Harry is like many babies, he might have had blue eyes at first, and then the colour changed after a few months. It is possible that Harry had bright blue eyes when Sirius saw him at the christening, and it is also possible that Sirius *never* saw Harry again after that, up until the events at Godric's Hollow, when Sirius saw Harry at night, and may not have noticed that his eyes were green and not blue. Del From bob.oliver at cox.net Thu Sep 1 15:08:51 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 15:08:51 -0000 Subject: Apologies and responsibility In-Reply-To: <63378ee705083113595efeb146@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139289 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, wrote: > There are only two things which bother me about Harry, who I > otherwise love as a character: his anger, which continues to > reach dangerous levels even when we're down to the last book, and > his tendency to do a lot of rulebreaking without much remorse or > learning from his mistakes. I'm not talking about necessary > rulebreaking, like the SS/PS stuff, or rulebreaking to fight > against unfair things, like going to Hogsmeade in PoA. > > I'm talking about looking in Dumbledore's Pensieve, apologizing, > then going right back and doing it to Snape, and what I thought > was the most disturbing thing: doing a slightly less malicious > version of what Lockhart (who I believe someone here described as > a sociopath) does by accepting the full credit, elevated status, > and nifty prizes that come with cheating using the HBP's book. > Harry saw no problem with his using the book, not even towards the > end of things or after he was caught. The issue of him cheating > was never resolved at all, and that continues to bug me. > > If Harry's progressed to doing the kind of thing that in the adult world would in some cases get you arrested, he has a lot to learn. Apologizing to Snape would have gotten him closer to learning it. > And having that moment of soberness in which he could do it would mean he could safely temper his anger, too. Yes, it seems that > won't be dealt with until the last book, and in light of the > events of HBP perhaps it shouldn't, but it still bothers me, > whether or not that's a failing of mine. I'd like to see Harry's > growing up throughout the story consist of more than learning not > to scream at his friends because they were doing what they thought > was best for him. With regard to Harry's anger, I really can't agree with you. Given all that he's been through, I would say he shows remarkable restraint -- certainly more so than I would, and more than I HAVE in many less provocative situations (no, I've never used a deadly curse on someone, but I have given people dressing downs that make his interactions with Ron, Hermione, Snape, and Dumbledore look like love feasts). Anger is part of being human, as much as pain or love, and trying to repress it or rise above it is generally not realistic. However healthy or socially beneficial that might be in theory, people just don't work that way. True, Harry does take out his anger on the relatively innocent, sometimes (and I'm not at all sure Ron and/or Hermione are blameless in the situations where Harry yells at them), but let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone. Unfortunately, we ALL take our anger out on inappropriate targets, sometimes. It is, indeed, one of the less attractive duties of love or friendship to absorb unjust anger from time to time. And, as I say, I'm not sure that Ron and/or Hermione don't have some of it coming, much of the time. Besides, I think our present culture perhaps gives anger a bad wrap. In our current rush to a therapeutic regime (and let me hasten to say I have nothing against psychiatry or therapy per se, I have the deepest respect for those practices), we have lost touch with some important aspects of social morality -- righteous anger being one of them. There is even plentiful theological, and if you will specifically Christian, justification for it. One only has to think of Christ addressing the Pharisees with stinging taunts, or the driving the moneychangers out of the temple in a fit of rage. Jesus was not always kind or patient, and sometimes displayed a towering temper when confronted by evil and hypocrisy. I'm not sure what you mean by "Harry progressing to doing things that in the adult world would get you arrested." Do you mean throwing Sectumsempra at Draco? That's true, I suppose, but not very relevant considering the context. As has been mentioned before, given wizarding powers of healing, wizards just don't seem to take physical assault nearly as seriously as muggles do. For that matter, the entire wizarding world is socially retarded in many ways -- physical assault wasn't always taken very seriously in the muggle world of the nineteenth century, which is the world on which so much of the Potterverse for good, or I will acknowledge often for ill, is based. For instance in Dickens' novel Nicholas Nickleby, when Nicholas finally loses his temper and beats Squeers, a Snape-like schoolmaster, into a near coma, the policeman embraces him and sends him on his way, all the time chuckling "thou beat the schoolmaster," as if the whole thing is the world's biggest joke. In short, if we are going to apply those standards, all of Hogwarts would be in jail before they reached the second year. And lets face it, Harry probably isn't going to cow Death Eaters with his skills at Classical Rhetoric. As for the cheating accusation, I don't agree at all. Harry was doing what he had been instructed to do -- i.e. prepare a potion. He used somewhat different directions than the rest of the class, it's true, however the potions he prepared were exemplery. He never claims to have invented the directions himself, he did not gain these directions in a dishonest manner, is not forbidden to use them, and offers to share them with his classmates. True, he receives praise from Slughorn, but it is obvious that Slughorn is just seizing an excuse to butter him up. Had Harry protested that he was following different directions, Sluggy would undoubtedly have said "Nothing of it, dear boy! It just shows your cleverness and initiative!" In any case, in no class that I have ever taught, and I have taught many, would Harry's actions be considered cheating in any way -- nor can I imagine any of my colleagues would have ever looked upon them in that way. In the environment in which I now work, a professional milieu outside of an academic setting, Harry would be highly commended for initiative and flexibility of thinking. If Harry had published the HBP's directions under his own name, THAT would be plagiarism and theft of intellectual property, but Harry does no such. Similarly, in my current professional environment, Hermione would recieve high formal marks, but would swiftly gain the reputation of being myopic and hopelessly hidebound with literal and restrictive interpretations, and her chances for promotion would be dwindling rapidly. Lupinlore From vmonte at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 17:32:00 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 17:32:00 -0000 Subject: Trelawney's Prediction/How like your father In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139290 Potioncat wrote: Irene suggests that Snape had reason to think that Harry was a Dark wizard, and Phil suggests that the bit of Voldy in Harry may have thrown off Trelawney. Two different posts that remind me of a third. One I can't find. It was written pre HBP by Kneasy and suggested that Snape has long been aware of the bit of Voldy that resides in Harry. A bit that made him very uncomfortable. Snape may have arranged the Serpensortia spell (not sure if it was called that in the book) in order to test Harry's Parseltongue ability; or at any rate, his speech confirmed Snape's suspicions. Snape would be justified in his concern that Potter would have some evil potential. vmonte: Interesting post. I tried to find Kneasy's old post to see what was discussed then. I've gone through 12/03 - 6/04 and still haven't come across Kneasy's post. I did find a post by Alla that suggested that Snape told Draco to use the Serpensortia spell because he believed that he might be a parcelmouth. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/101960 Alla: Is there any evidence in canon that any other Slyhterin knows this spell. I always assumed that Snape told Draco this spell right before the duel. I think that Snape suspected that Harry is a Parselmouth and wanted to test his suspicion. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/102912 Here is the next time the connection is made. vmonte: The idea is that baby Harry was sharing space with Tom. That both Harry and Tom are in the same body. Some canon to support this theory is that in CoS Harry recognizes Ton Riddle's name and for some reason believes that Tom seemed like a childhood friend he had. You also have DD's comments about "In essence divided..." Let's say that Tom is inside Harry. When Harry was a child he was aware of Tom as being a separate entity within, but as Harry grows older, Tom somehow becomes assimilated into his own personality. Also, what if Snape has realized that Tom is inside of Harry? Why did Snape tell draco to use Serpentsorcia during the duel? What would make him think that Harry might have these powers? Maybe Snape has been protecting Harry all of these years because he needs him to survive till the point in time he can remove Riddle from Harry's psyche. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/98004 Here is when I started to think that Harry had more than just some of Voldemort's talents. vmonte: Someone recently mentioned the "in essence divided" comment by DD. Could a part of Voldemort, aside from certain talents, be inside Harry? Is it possible that when Voldemort attacked baby Harry that he lost whatever was left of his humanity? Could a part of Tom be inside Harry? Didn't Harry once comment that the name Tom Riddle seemed familiar, like an old friend he had as a child? Is it possible that Lily's spell tore Voldemort's soul/essence literally in half? Could Tom have been absorbed into Harry? Another fan answered this post saying that they had also thought this- -previous to my post. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/98026 I really think that Harry is a horcrux. Vivian From jjjjjulie at aol.com Thu Sep 1 17:43:45 2005 From: jjjjjulie at aol.com (jjjjjuliep) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 17:43:45 -0000 Subject: Not a Dark Mark ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139291 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > Throughout HBP Draco starts to look more and more sickly. He keeps > disappearing. In Borgin and Burkes he shows Borgin something that > frightens him, Harry thinks its a Dark Mark, but how can we be > sure. Can we even really be sure that a Dark Mark would frighten > Borgin? When Snape showed Fudge his burning Dark Mark, it didn't > frighten him much, and there are many in the WW who don't even > know what they are. Well it could be a Dark Mark, but since there > *is* reason for doubt, then why don't we call it a Werewolf bite ? > > John Granger, to whom the credit for this brilliant find belongs, > has written about it on his site at this link. > > http://www.hogwartsprofessor.com/home.php? page=docs/AlchemicalThoughtsHP7&PHPSESSID=0a29d7aacd33a7a04a82c41a8fc9 ea3d > > Thoughts anyone? Or are we all as dumbstruck as me? First, he's not the first person to float this theory--it's been out there for a while now. Second, you have to evaluate his theory *in the context of everything else he has in that "essay"*. There are a number of factual errors on the part of this self-proclaimed Potter scholar (for example, he can't get Umbridge's name correct) and there are things he writes which completely fly in the face of what we know is true. For example, he writes: > Ms. Rowling says nothing in her Fantastic Beasts books on Veela > or Vampires and she has been positively vehement in recent > interviews in her denials that Professor Snape is a vampire. This > lack of information and truthful misdirection, of course, protects > her story line, which she admits is her second priority in life > after caring for her young family. This set off all of my warning bells. He purports to be a Potter scholar, but he thinks JKR outright lies to us in interviews? To assume she is lying when she has thoroughly discounted the entire Snape/vampire storyline is to read things that are not there into both the story and into her interviews. JKR plays fair. She may misdirect, but she does not lie. This is why I have a hard time with most of the speculation in this "essay". (The alchemy stuff is fairly solid and standard, and in line with what I've been reading over the last few years. There is also Tarot/number stuff which ties in with all of this.) Leaving aside the IMO nonsense about Snape being a half vampire b/c his father was a Muggle "with a blood disease" (the disease being being a vampire) and the whole misunderstanding on Granger's part about the difference between humans (Muggles and wizards) and non- humans, we have this: > blood lust and passions of a vampire subside. Count Sanguini is > forced by his agent to eat such a treat at the Slughorn Christmas > party. No doubt Severus Snape had some of these pasties on hand or > knew the potion preparation well (one he taught to mom years ago). Sounds compelling? Well, there is zero evidence that there is any kind of anti-vampire potion. So how does it follow that there is "no doubt" Snape had them on hand? Let's look at the actual text: -------------------- ...And all with very little effort on your part, I assure you ? ask Sanguini here if it isn't quite ? Sanguini, stay here!" added Worple, suddenly stern, for the vampire had been edging toward the nearby group of girls, a rather hungry look in his eye. "Here, have a pasty," said Worple, seizing one from a passing elf and stuffing it into Sanguini's hand before turning his attention back to Harry. "My dear boy, the gold you could make, you have no idea ?" "I'm definitely not interested," said. -------------------- Nowhere in this scene is Sanguini "forced" to eat anything. Nor is there any evidence that Worple is "Snape's agent". The scene IMO is played for comic relief--Sanguini is edging toward the girls and instead of blood, he is given something he can't use--a pastry. Most of the theories about what will happen in the book *which are not tied to the alchemical story* exhibit, IMO, the same willful ignoring of what the text actually says. Now on to the "Draco is a werewolf" theore. He writes: > One such turn-your-thinking-upside-down post came from Mary Ailes, > whose idea was supported immediately by Laura Henderson (who had > been working on parallel tracks simultaneously). Their theory is > that the secret Moaning Myrtle wont tell Ron and Harry about Draco > isnt his secret mission to kill Dumbledore or that he is a closet > Death Eater. The secret she cannot tell them is that Draco is a > werewolf. > > Now, before you run from Myrtles bathroom hooting, run this scene > through your minds eye again. Were on the Astronomy Tower under > the invisibility cloak and immobilized with Harry. Fenrir Greyback > appears and the nasty man-wolf is picking the flesh out of his > teeth. Dumbledore is disgusted that Greyback is eating human meat > out of his season, I think Dumbledore's disgust is not because Greyback is hunting "out of his season". I think it is because Greyback *hunts children*. > tells him so, and adds, tellingly: > > And, yes, I am a little shocked that Draco here invited you, of > all people, into the school where his friends live. > > I didnt, breathed Malfoy. He was not looking at Fenrir; he did not > seem to want to even glance at him. I didnt know he was going to > come - (Half-Blood Prince, chapter 27, Scholastic p. 594) > > Step back for a moment (watch the Tower edge). Draco Malfoy has > been working all year to kill Dumbledore with a certain disregard > for the lives of anyone and everyone who might get in the way of > his Hail, Mary shots at the greatest wizard living. Dumbledore > knows this and does not confront Draco only because he fears Dracos > Occlumency is not good enough to shield himself from Lord > Voldemorts penetration. > > Knowing that Malfoy is acting with bizarre disregard for the lives > of his friends in the erratic attempts on Dumbledores life, why is > the Headmaster shocked that Draco invited a werewolf into Hogwarts? > I think the reasonable answer is the Draco Wolfboy theory, that > Dumbledore knows Draco is a werewolf and tha Fenrir Greyback bit > him on the arm on the Dark Lords orders to punish his parents. > Dumbledore had to make the arrangements with the Potions master to > make the Wolfsbane Potion Draco would need to get through the year > (a thought that Draco or Horace perhaps does not guard at the > Christmas Party, which explains the look of fear on Severus the > Legilimens face there). First, and quite importantly, Draco's disregard for his fellow students most definitely does NOT extend to his Slytherin/Death Eater pals. They are never, ever in danger from what he does. He would not put his friends in to danger. Second, the "reasonable answer" is that Draco knows the Death Eaters who are with him there will only kill Dumbledore, the members of the Order of the Phoenix, and those students who have aligned themselves with the Order and who engage voluntarily in that battle. The children of the Death Eaters--that is, Malfoy's friends--are safe. Horrible though the DEs may be, they will not harm the children of their group. Greyback, on the other hand, is under no such constraints. He kills willfully and for pleasure, and has a special fondness for children. He is the most truly despicable character in the books, and a true stroke of genius as written by JKR. He will not care if he kills and eats Gryffindors, Ravenclaws, Huflepuffs, or Slytherins, including the children of Death Eaters. Draco knows this and that is why he is afraid--he is afraid that this truly evil creature, not bound at all by humanity, will kill his own friends. THAT is why he is so upset to see Draco there. He could care less about killing anyone outside of Slytherin. But now, with Greyback on campus with his friends, and with flesh in his teeth, Draco finally begins to understand the full scope of the evil he has signed on with. The glamour of evil, like the glamor of the veela, is now showing its horrible ugly underside. More importantly, if Draco *were* a werewolf, why would he be afraid of Greyback? He's already a werewolf. Greyback can't do anything else to him (save kill him, and that's probably the least of Draco's worries at this time). > The evidence put forth by Mary Ailes and Laura Henderson is > compelling. You have multiple descriptions of Draco in Lupinesque > condition, pale, haggard, sunken eyes (apparently this Wolfsbane > Potion must be a little like chemotherapy). He is constantly > disappearing and in ill health. There is also the encounter in > Diagon Alley in the robes shop and the overheard conversation > Borgin and Burkes. But the course Voldemort has set for Draco requires a great deal of planning, patience, detail-orientation, and the most efficient use of time possible. How would he allow for the person to carry out this plan to be turned into a werewolf which would at the very least slow down the plans to the point where they could not be implemented before the school year ends (because of the time lost every month to the antidote), or at worst, completely upended because potion was not taken and Draco transforms into a werewolf and tips his hand? It makes no sense. > Harry, of course, assumes the arm wound is the fresh tattoo of a > Death Eater. Hermione is very skeptical throughout the book. When > in doubt, whom do you trust? Hermione or Harry? > > I, of course, trust the Granger over a Potter every time. In books 1-5, yes. In book 6--no. This is the book where Harry takes over. After Sirius's death and the revelation of the prophecy at the end of book 5, this is a different Harry. This is a Harry who no longer sees through a glass darkly. This book begins, for the first time, with 2 chapters not from Harry's POV. That is a sign that that things are being upended in the narrative. We hear Draco boasting on the train, and we know from the scene at Spinner's End that Harry's conclusions *are* true. > Its a werewolf bite - and it scares Mr. Borgin, especially when > Draco says Greyback is a family friend. Hell be dropping in to see > you from time to time to make sure youre giving the problem your > full attention (Half-Blood Prince, chapter 6, p.125). > > Mr. Borgin probably knows, as Lupin tells us, that Greyback is, > perhaps, the most savage werewolf alive today who regards it as > his mission in life to bite and contaminate as many people as > possible and that at the full moon, he positions himself close to > victims, ensuring that he is near enough to strike. He plans it > all. And this is the man Voldemort is using to marshal the > werewolves (Half-Blood Prince, chapter 16, Scholastic, > pp. 334-335). Looking at Dracos bite probably has at least the > effect of seeing the Dark Mark tattoo Harry imagines is on Dracos > arm. Again, what purpose does this serve? It doesn't make any narrative sense to have someone threatened with a bite, when the entire first part of the book is devoted to telling us that both the wizarding and Muggle worlds now know that Voldemort is back. The whole point of the scene-setting in the first few chapters is to show the huge difference between the ostrich-like behavior of the Ministry in book 5 and their scramble to action in book 6. The Dark Mark is the scariest thing you can see in a world beset by terror. It's much scarier than a werewolf bite. As gruesome and terrible as Greyback is, he is nothing compared to the Death Eaters. He is nothing compared to Voldemort. Greyback's retaliation is a threat, to be sure, but the scariest thing you can be threatened with is Voldemort's wrath. Borgin had to have remembered what was like during the first wizarding war. That is what spurs his fear--the threat of that coming home to roost on him and his family. > But what is the meaning of Dracos being made a werewolf? What does > it contribute to the story? It is, after all, not even mentioned > in the Half-Blood Prince story-line. Draco Wolf-boy simultaneously > reveals the consequences of evil and makes the evil-doer more an > object of pity than hatred or judgment. > > The Malfoys are horrible people, to cut to the quick, who are Pure > -Blood Nazis and Death Eaters of the worst kind. They despise both > Muggles and the Mudblood wizards born from this breeding stock, > they treat their house-elves cruelly, and they conspire for the > return and triumph of the Dark Lord in the hope that they will > share in his power. Unfortunately, for them, Lucius failed the > Dark Lord, who visited the failings of the father on the son to > torture the whole family. Draco is sent onto a suicide mission and > made into a werewolf besides to show to the Death Eaters in the > inner circle how severe the consequences of failure really are. How can you create an entire backstory which is completely invisible in the text, and then insist it's really there? IMO it's one thing to so as a member of the online fandom, but to do so while also one is also representing his/herself as a scholar is very puzzling to me. A close textual analysis of the actual facts at hand supports no such contention. I completely disagree with this scenario. The Malfoys are evil. Period. There's no additional torture of having their son made into a werewolf. It serves IMO no use in the plot. Draco is on a suicide mission. What is the point of also making him a werewolf? Narcissa knows her son is going to die. *That* is her punishment. That is the warning to the other Death Eaters--like the Pharaoh killed the first born sons to try to kill Moses, Voldemort will kill the children of Death Eaters who let him down. There's no need to add to that particular pain, or to the horror of that threat--killing children, or sending them to their eventual deaths, is more than enough. JKR writes with a lighter touch than many people in the Potterverse will give her credit for. Furthermore, our pity for Draco, when Dumbledore tries to save his soul, in no way needs the added "knowledge" that Draco is a werewolf. It's a melodramatic, added plot point which is completely out of synch with JKR's style and plotting. Plus, there already is one person bitten by Greyback: Bill Weasley. That is the bite that is 1. supported by text and 2. has the greatest impact. The pureblood Weasley family is now tainted. And their response is love. As is Fleur's, marking her as one of the Weasleys too. jujube -- Madam Pince's Sitting Room: a strictly canon-based Harry Potter discussion group opening for discussion in mid-September http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Madam_Pince/ From tmarends at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 18:04:39 2005 From: tmarends at yahoo.com (Tim) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 18:04:39 -0000 Subject: The Opposite of a Horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139292 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > Chys wrote: > "Well, anyway, a horcrux is where you kill someone to extend your own > life. The opposite, couldn't it be, to give yourself up to extend the > life of another? " > >> Del replied: > > * The magic behind the creation of a Opposite of a Horcrux wouldn't be > taboo at all. Horcruxes are taboo because they are Dark Magic at its > worst, they necessarily include murder. The Opposite of a Horcrux > would be based on extremely good magic (I posited that it would be > based on Love Magic), there's nothing taboo about that, quite the > opposite. As for the fear that knowing about the Opposite would make > students wonder about the Horcrux, I don't think that's really a > concern at Hogwarts, where they couldn't find the information even if > they wanted to. > > * I think the real reason the Opposite of a Horcrux isn't taught at > Hogwarts is that Lily is the first one who ever created one. > > * The reason why Opposites of Horcruxes aren't created more often by > people sacrificing themselves is that it necessitates a spell. A > Horcrux is not created everytime a wizard kills another wizard. The > murder is not the way, it is only the main ingredient. It's a specific > spell that creates the Horcrux. Similarly, the self-sacrifice would > only be the main ingredient in the creation of an Opposite of a > Horcrux, but a spell would be necessary to make it happen. > Now me: Isn't the saying that the eyes are the windows to the soul. Is it possible that Lily's sacrifice, her undieing love for Harry is what has not only been protecting him (why else would he have to go to the Dursley's every year), but has also made him an incredibly powerful wizard? He could do a fully form Patronus at age 13 and fight off a flock of Dementors. He's probably more powerful than even he realizes. Tim From apollo414j at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 18:02:13 2005 From: apollo414j at yahoo.com (apollo414j) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 18:02:13 -0000 Subject: An (interesting ?) parallel In-Reply-To: <20050901095551.79413.qmail@web86205.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139293 Irene: > If we judge him by the same moral law people here seem > to judge Snape, then Aslan should've killed the little > bastard on the spot, never mind dying for him. I think, perhaps, the difference is that readers are making a moral judgement on Snape in the context of him being an adult. When you take in consideration everything that Edmund did that led his siblings into harms way- I think it's easier for an audience to forgive him of that because he's a child and children make mistakes of morality more easily than an adult simply for the fact that they might not know any better. --Jeff From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 18:18:30 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 18:18:30 -0000 Subject: An (interesting ?) parallel/ My doubts about Snape being Evil In-Reply-To: <20050901144515.70974.qmail@web86211.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139294 Irene: > Actually, I don't believe we did. He expressed remorse > to Aslan, and then Aslan told everyone something to > the tune of "we will not speak of what happened ever > again". But Edmund was the bravest one in the battle, > and he was the key player in defeating the Witch. So, > the words are cheap, but the deeds speak louder. :-) Alla: Ooops, then. As I said - am fuzzy on the details of those books. But I do agree with you that words are cheap and Snape has plenty of deeds to speak for him or agains him, IMO Alla earlier: What do you think - does > > Snape owe Harry a > > BIG apology for being complicit in his parents > > death? Irene: > Yes, right after the battle ends. Or right after Harry > stops insisting on his right to keep his mind wide > open for Voldemort, whichever comes first. Alla: OK, I am REALLY happy to hear it. I was afraid that you subscribe to the idea that Snape is so damaged that he should be excused from any responsibility for his actions. Irene Mikhlin wrote: > I don't like the idea of a debt you could never repay. > I'm struggling to make myself clear here. Imagine a > couple, where one of the partners cheated on the > other. So the cheater repents, and the other partner > decides to forgive and forget. It's a very difficult > thing to do. Lots of times the couple divorces anyway, > because the wronged side holds the past sins over your > head forever. You know, the unspoken threat: 'Don't > you dare to criticise me in any way after what you've > done to me'. > > To bring it back to Hogwarts, if Dumbledore accepted > Snape's defection from Voldie under condition that > Snape will devote his life to repaying that debt, I > guess Snape would have rather committed suicide there > and then, because that's would not be life anyway. Alla: I am afraid I don't understand. You were arguing in your original post that just as Aslan forgave Edmund, Snape needs to be forgiven, right? Well, I was responding that IMO Snape has wronged Harry SO badly that IF he is sorry indeed, I expect him to behave differently. The only reason I talked about "debt which could never be repaid" was to show that Snape does not behave, IMO only, as a person that owes any debt at all. I was saying that in order for me as a reader to forgive Snape I need to see more ... I don't know humbleness from him. ( Yes, yes, I know he won't be Snape then if he would be humble, but we are talking about Snape who does not know that he is in the book, right? Snape as a "real person", sort of. :-)) I am afraid I don't get your analogy about the couple either. Are you thinking of Snape and Harry or Snape and Dumbledore? Because if you are thinking of Snape and Harry as a couple, I certainly do not see any proof that Snape repented to Harry. Oh, but yes, Snape holds James' sins over Harry's head forever :-) I think I am confusing myself now. The bottom line to me is that I don't see Snape's behaving as remorseful person, but I do see him behaving as if Harry owes him something and THAT is in light of what Snape helped Harry's life to turn out is so despicable to me. Colebiancardi: Snape didn't physically deliver the > Potter's to LV - but he was instrumental in delivering the message. > > I guess the old saying is right - People will SHOOT the messager. Alla: I think your analogy is flawed. Messenger has no choice as to delivery of the message. As far as we know Snape delivered prophecy to Voldemort out of his own volition. So, yes, he is complicit the way I see it. Jazmyn: > Something people seem to refuse to consider that in fact, it is > Draco that is resposible for Dumbledore's death. > Draco obviously let his mother know.. His mother got Snape involved > through an unbreakable curse. The last part of which was promising to complete Draco's assignment if Draco failed. If he doesn't do > so, he DIES. Alla: Oh, Draco certainly is plenty responcible for events on the Tower, no questions about it in my mind, ( listen to Harry, people, listen to him :-)), but I missed the part where Narcissa forced poor Snape to take the Vow under Imperio or any other kind of duress. I mean per Neri's eloquent argument I definitely see Narcissa using seduction tactics on him, but Snape still has his brains, right? :-) JMO of course, Alla From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 1 18:30:19 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 18:30:19 -0000 Subject: Trelawney's Prediction/How like your father In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139295 Potioncat wrote: > Irene suggests that Snape had reason to think that Harry was a Dark > wizard, and Phil suggests that the bit of Voldy in Harry may have > thrown off Trelawney. Two different posts that remind me of a third. > One I can't find. It was written pre HBP by Kneasy and suggested > that Snape has long been aware of the bit of Voldy that resides in > Harry. vmonte: > Interesting post. I tried to find Kneasy's old post to see what was > discussed then. I've gone through 12/03 - 6/04 and still haven't > come across Kneasy's post. SSSusan: You just didn't go *quite* far enough, vmonte. ;-) Here's what Kneasy calls his "most comprehensive overview" of the possession/Voldybit theory: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/108664 Happy reading! Siriusly Snapey Susan From dc.thorburn at ntlworld.com Thu Sep 1 18:40:48 2005 From: dc.thorburn at ntlworld.com (Derek Thorburn) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:40:48 +0100 Subject: will Harry return to Hogwarts? Message-ID: <004d01c5af24$acc4a8a0$3e781652@thorburn> No: HPFGUIDX 139296 I think, whilst we're discussing Harry's future education, we need to consider whether or not Harry's really going to return to school. At the end of HBP he specifically announces to Ron and Hermione that he won't return, even if it does open. This could be a natural reaction to DD's death, or it could be a determination to get on with the finding of the horcruxes and finally vanquishing LV. Derek From Nanagose at aol.com Thu Sep 1 19:04:15 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 19:04:15 -0000 Subject: The Opposite of a Horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139297 > Jen answered: > "You're thinking about Del's post, who had a similar theory in > mid-August. Here it is in case anyone wants to re-read it: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137502" > Del replies: > Thanks Jen :-) > > And, huh, I don't like to throw flowers at myself usually, but I > have to say that IMO my own theory was not "looser". I worked quite > a bit on that one :-). I encourage anyone who is interested in the > "Opposite of a Horcrux" theory to go and read my post too. Christina: Actually, the post I was thinking of was this one: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/136015 by Rin. I knew I botched my summary of it, because it doesn't talk about Lily at all, but it is an interesting read (it actually has more to do with love as Harry's greatest power than Horcruxes). I don't remember reading your post the first time around, so I just gave it a look now :) It's a very thorough and enticing theory, just because it explains so much and is neat and tidy. I thought that HBP would wrap up a lot of storylines and answer most of our questions (paving the way for the final showdown in book 7), but since this really wasn't the case (at least IMO), I think the explanations we will get in the seventh book will need to be on the simple side just so that they all fit into one novel. Since JKR has already familiarized us with the idea of Horcruxes, I think the idea of opposite Horcruxes would be easy for the readers to understand and accept. Del: > * The reason why Opposites of Horcruxes aren't created more often by > people sacrificing themselves is that it necessitates a spell. A > Horcrux is not created everytime a wizard kills another wizard. The > murder is not the way, it is only the main ingredient. It's a > specific spell that creates the Horcrux. Similarly, the > self-sacrifice would only be the main ingredient in the creation of > an Opposite of a Horcrux, but a spell would be necessary to make it > happen. Christina: This is where I start to get hesitant about the theory. Obviously, since the Opposite-Horcrux creation would require Lily's death, the spell in question must have been cast before her death occurred. Now we know that Lily had talent in charms, but I can't help but think back to a quote JKR gave during the MuggleNet/TLC interview: ---- MA: Did she [Lily] know anything about the possible effect of standing in front of Harry? JKR: No - because as I've tried to make clear in the series, it never happened before. No one ever survived before. And no one, therefore, knew that could happen. ---- Now, I suppose that if JKR did use the Opposite-Horcrux idea, she could always defend her statement by saying that since Lily was the first person to ever try to make an Opposite-Horcrux, she didn't *know* for sure it would work and therefore didn't *know* for sure that Harry would survive the AK. However, she seems to be giving a very clear and straightforward answer (which doesn't happen often), so it makes me think that this isn't the route she's on. Of course, like I said before, I still can't think up a scenario concerning Lily's sacrifice that makes sense in the context of what we've heard in the books and interviews, so I'm sure things will get fudged a bit. Del: > * And finally, about Sirius not mentioning the change in Harry's > eyes: > we don't know how often Sirius saw Baby!Harry. If Harry is like many > babies, he might have had blue eyes at first, and then the colour > changed after a few months. It is possible that Harry had bright > blue eyes when Sirius saw him at the christening, and it is also > possible that Sirius *never* saw Harry again after that, up until > the events at Godric's Hollow, when Sirius saw Harry at night, and > may not have noticed that his eyes were green and not blue. Christina: Ah, nice catch! It's been a long time since I've been in the company of a newborn :) I still think that Sirius saw Harry several days before Halloween, but that's definitely open to debate. It was Sirius that convinced James and Lily to switch the Secret-Keeper to Peter "at the last moment." I guess he could have spoken to them via Floo, but that just seems like the kind of hushed conversation that would take place in person (and I can't imagine Sirius visiting the Potters without saying hello to his godson). It's kind of a leap, but JMO of course. Christina From vmonte at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 19:30:59 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 19:30:59 -0000 Subject: Trelawney's Prediction/How like your father In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139298 SSSusan: You just didn't go *quite* far enough, vmonte. ;-) Here's what Kneasy calls his "most comprehensive overview" of the possession/Voldybit theory: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/108664 Happy reading! Siriusly Snapey Susan vmonte: Thanks Susan. Alla's and my posts were in May and June of 2004. Kneasy's post was in August 2004. Thanks. I was not looking forward to searching anymore. Too bad you can't search a specific month using the poster's name. I'm reading all of Kneazy's post and links right now. I remember his possession theory but not the soul-bit in Harry theory. Thanks again, Vivian PS - These posts are over a year old and we're pretty much discussing the same things today that we were then. Actually, some of the older posts are much more insightful. I think I'm going to resuscitate some good posts I noticed from other people. Some of my old posts are very Luna/Quibbler-like. Should I be worried? :) I found Marta's website (she is an artist that draws Harry Potter pictures for the Lexicon) yesterday. Here is a link to a cute picture she drew of Harry and Ginny. http://www.artdungeon.net/hbp/template.php?p=happyhour From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 19:51:10 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 19:51:10 -0000 Subject: Draco's culpability (Was: My doubts about Snape being Evil) In-Reply-To: <43167E0D.9020002@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139299 Jazmyn wrote: > Something people seem to refuse to consider that in fact, it is Draco that is resposible for Dumbledore's death. > Draco decided to join the Death Eater. > Draco took the job of attempting to kill Dumbledore.> > Draco obviously let his mother know.. His mother got Snape involved through an unbreakable curse. The last part of which was promising to complete Draco's assignment if Draco failed. If he doesn't do so, he DIES. > If Draco had been able to kill Dumbledore, Snape would not have had to. > Draco of course failed in Voldemort's task, then Snape had no > choice, Dumbledore begged him, not for his life, but for Snape to > save his own life and Draco's. Dumbledore would NEVER beg for his own life. > > So... Its Draco's fault. Yet everyone wants to blame Snape. Carol responds: Without getting into the complex question of Snape's "culpability" and motives, which I've already explored in countless posts, I partially agree with you about Draco (though if we're placing blame, much of it goes back as usual to Voldemort). I agree that Draco joined the Death Eaters of his own accord, probably bent on avenging his father's arrest (which he regards as Harry's fault) and taking Lucius's place as the DE in the family. He certainly bragged to Voldemort about knowing a secret way into Hogwarts via the broken vanishing cabinets. At that point, he was caught in his own trap. Voldemort ordered him to fix the cabinet, bring Death Eaters into Hogwarts, and kill Dumbledore. Perhaps Draco had the option of killing Dumbledore in some other way, or perhaps those other attempts were desperation measures. If he failed, the penalty was his own death and his family's. At the beginning of HBP, Draco is full of his own importance, threatening Borgin and bragging to his friends, apparently in no fear for his own life and his mother's. By Christmas, however, he's desperate enough to try the cursed necklace and the poisoned mead. These contingency plans involve another crime, Imperioing Madam Rosmerta. (Meanwhile Draco is avoiding Snape, who has put his accomplices in detention, and blocks Snape's attempts to find out what he's really up to--aside from recklessly trying to kill Dumbledore using methods which, as Snape reminds him, are likely to get him expelled. Clearly Snape knows nothing about the vanishing cabinet, and because he doesn't know this, neither does Dumbledore.) Draco and Draco alone fixes the vanishing cabinet and allows the Death Eaters to enter Hogwarts, using the Hand of Glory (an aid to criminals!) and Peruvian Darkness powder. He disarms Dumbledore and leads the DEs up to the tower. They're delayed slightly by the Order members, giving Dumbledore a chance to talk Draco out of killing him personally. Nevertheless, once Dumbledore, ill and physically helpless, has been disarmed and the DEs have entered the room, his death is inevitable. Draco must be given his chance to "do the deed" (Voldemort's orders), but if he fails, the brutal-faced death Eater or Fenrir Grayback or the Carrows(?) will be happy to do it themselves. Enter Snape, with the stage set so that he can't back out of his vow. Draco has failed to kill Dumbledore, forcing Snape to make a terrible choice. He casts the curse, grabs Draco, and runs. Regardless of Snape's motives, you are again correct that he would not have killed Dumbledore if Draco had not brought in the Death Eaters and forced Snape's hand by activating the Unbreakable Vow. (Snape has mentioned the first two provisions of the vow to Draco, who casually dismisses them as Snape's problem.) So where does Draco stand? He's a Death Eater by his own choice. He has twice attempted murder (via the necklace and the mead) and nearly killed two fellow students in the process (directly or indirectly, it's Snape who saves them). He has performed an Imperius Curse on Madam Rosmerta, itself enough to send him to Azkaban. He has allowed Death Eaters, including Fenrir Grayback, into the school, making him partially responsible for Bill Weasley's injuries. He has endangered his schoolmates, who would have been at the DE's mercy had Snape not ordered them off the grounds and Dumbledore not stationed the Order as guards. Draco did, admittedly, lower his wand. He did fail to cast an AK (though he would have been quite happy to kill Dumbledore with a cursed necklace or poisoned mead). But had it not been for his boast about the linked vanishing cabinets and his successful completion of the task assigned him (letting the DEs into Hogwarts), Dumbledore would not be dead. Draco is "innocent" only in the technical sense that he did not cast the spell that killed Dumbledore. He is not a pure-souled child who intended Dumbledore no harm. He is at best an accessory to murder, and it was his plan (and Voldemort's) that led to Dumbledore's death. Dumbledore must have known even as he spoke to Draco that his death was at hand and that it would be Draco's doing regardless of who cas the spell. Yet he could say to the terrified and guilty boy, "It is my mercy, not yours, that matters now." Mercy is not justice. It is neither earned nor deserved. Draco has just turned seventeen or is about to turn seventeen (on June 5); he is a man by WW standards. His crimes are enough to send him to Azkaban for life, and given the WW's justice system (and Rufus Scrimgeour), that may well be his fate. Yet Dumbledore offered him mercy, in effect, a second chance, a chance for redemption. It will be interesting to see what Draco will do once he realizes that his "glory" is really infamy and that he is no more free than Snape to wander about the WW. Will he take responsibility for what he's done or will he blame it all on Snape? Will Snape continue to protect him or will he be a wanted criminal at large in a hostile world at seventeen? Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 20:02:27 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 20:02:27 -0000 Subject: Apologies and responsibility In-Reply-To: <63378ee705083113595efeb146@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139300 Lady Indigo wrote: > And I never said he needs to be especially grateful to Snape, or even grateful at all. What has Snape done for him, exactly, since saving his life during SS? > Carol responds: How about sending the Order to the MoM in OoP? If Snape hadn't done that, not only Harry but five other students would be dead. I think Snape also informed Dumbledore that Harry had run off on a wild goose chase after Sirius; otherwise Snape could not have told Sirius Black to stay put because Dumbledore was coming. (No fault of his that Black didn't listen.) BTW, I think JKR didn't allow Harry the opportunity to apologize to Snape after the Pensieve incident because she wants to maintain the tension between them till the final book. At the end of HBP, Harry's hatred and anger is ratcheted up to the highest possible level. Also, many people keep approaching the book as if it were solely a heroic quest, but it's also a bildungsroman and the protagonist is still in the painful process of growing up. Part of that process for a Christian writer like JKR is to forgive those who trespass against us--in Harry's case, learning to forgive Snape. Clearly, he has a long way to go even at the end of OoP, and the end of HBP makes acquiring this crucial element of a hero's character almost impossible. Snape also has trespasses to forgive, minor compared with his own great sin in HBP but still trespasses, and it appears that he, too, has not yet learned this lesson, adult (and genius) though he is. Besides violating Snape's privacy, as you rightly point out, the Pensieve incident reinforces Snape's opinion that Harry is untrustworthy. He knows that Harry was involved in stealing supplies from his office in SS/PS and suspected him again (wrongly but with good cause)in GoF; the Pensieve incident "proves" to Snape that he was right about Harry, as does the later incident involving the HBP's Potions book. Snape calls Harry "a liar and a cheat," and harsh though the words are, they're true. Harry *ought* to have produced the HBP's book, but even after finding out what Sectumsempra is, he doesn't want the book confiscated because he finds it so helpful. Snape knows that Harry is keeping something that rightfully belongs to him and that he has used it to earn marks he doesn't deserve, and it's for that reason, not because he foolishly used a curse without knowing what it did, that Snape places him in detention (at the same time pointing out to Harry that the curse is Dark Magic, a point that Harry doesn't seem to get). It's ironic that Snape, the Head of Slytherin House, with its supposed disregard for rules, is always the rule enforcer. And even after Snape has killed Dumbledore (a deed for which he may or may not feel great remorse), he's still *right* in telling Harry not to use Unforgiveable Curses and to control his emotions, especially anger and hatred. That is the lesson that Harry must learn, not only to grow up, as the bildungsroman requires, but to destroy Voldemort, as the heroic quest requires. IMO, it will be through Snape that Harry finally learns this lesson. But in terms of both plot and character development (Harry's), it would be premature for him to overcome his hatred of Snape and apologize for his intrusion into the Pensieve. Snape's anger makes it impossible when Harry is in the right frame of mind; the moment passes and will not return. Instead their mutual prejudices are reinforced and Harry's hatred of Snape intensifies. Harry should also have been grateful to Snape for sending the Order to the MoM to rescue him and his friends. Instead, he chooses to blame Snape for Sirius's death--chooses, in fact, to hate him ("He would never forgive Snape. Never!"). After HBP, of course, he has a much better reason for hating Snape, which *seems* to justify all his earlier suspicion and hatred and *seems* to indicate that Snape was working for LV all along. In any case, in terms of both plot and Harry's character development, he can't apologize to Snape after the Pensieve scene or develop a better understanding of him (and vice versa) through the Occlumency lessons. The tension must build or the final confrontation between Harry and Snape will be anticlimactic. Harry's own wrongdoing (sneaking, lying, stealing, cheating) now pales beside Snape's (however painful and difficult Snape's choices on the tower may have been), and it is no longer an apology but forgiveness that matters. Though I don't usually agree with Alla about Snape, I do think she's right that Dumbledore's words to Draco, "It is not your mercy but mine that matters now," foreshadow Harry's mercy toward Snape in Book 7. (Nevertheless, I foresee Snape as saving Harry before the end, which will definitively demonstrate to Harry which side Snape is on.) On a sidenote to Eggplant, regardless of Snape's motives in putting his own memories into the Pensieve, Harry could not have done so because AFWK he lacks the skill of removing memories from his own head, and for Snape to have removed them for him would require Snape's seeing and accessing those memories in Harry's head, defeating the purpose of removing them. (It would also, of course, have made the lessons pointless. As others have indicated, Harry has to have memories to defend from prying eyes in order for the lessons to work.) Carol, who always assumed that Dumbledore taught Snape Occlumency but now wonders whether it was his Head of House, Slughorn P.S. My apologies if this post appears more than once. Yahoomort seems to be rejecting it. From apollo414j at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 18:13:36 2005 From: apollo414j at yahoo.com (apollo414j) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 18:13:36 -0000 Subject: Possibly another slant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139301 Bud: > I also have a problem believing that the DL would assign > such a gigantic assignment (doing in DD) to an unproven teen. I'm not so sure. I wouldn't put anything past Voldemort. In the second chapter, Narcissa is very concerned with Voldemort having assigned Draco such a difficult task just because of Lucius's mistakes. Also, Snape tells Narcissa and Bellatrix that he thinks Voldemort means for him to finish the task in the end anyway... in the "unlikely" event that Draco should actually succeed. (I can't quote exactly because I don't have my copy of the book handy at the moment- but, I know it goes something along those lines.) So, I think that killing Dumbledore was really the task that Voldemort assigned to Draco. --Jeff From marika_thestral at yahoo.se Thu Sep 1 20:04:18 2005 From: marika_thestral at yahoo.se (marika_thestral) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 20:04:18 -0000 Subject: The Opposite of a Horcrux/Interesting Parallel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139302 Christina (message 139274 The Opposite of a Horcrux) : ...but that suggested that when someone you love dies (I'm not sure if they stipulated that they die for you), part of their soul kind of goes to you so your is built up. This is in contrast with murder and horcrux-making, which splits up your soul. The poster suggested that the deaths of Lily, Sirius, and Dumbledore are all making Harry stronger. Irene (message 139265 An (interesting ?) parallel): ... a possible parallel in "Chronicles of Narnia". In there, Edmund delivers his own sisters and brother to the White Witch. Who wants to kill them because of a prophecy saying they can defeat her. Not some anonymous people, not his childhood enemy, his own brother and sisters. If we judge him by the same moral law people here seem to judge Snape, then Aslan should've killed the little bastard on the spot, never mind dying for him. Marika: I would like to use two of the themes above, namely passing (part of?) your soul on to somebody else when dying, and Aslan/Dumbledore dying for Edmund/others. A storyline that would appeal to me (believing in a dislikable/unpleasant, but not evil Snape, who has remained on Dumbledore's side) would be one where Dumbledore indeed did ask Snape to end his (Dumbledore's) life at the Astronomy Tower. (For reasons already mentioned in several posts.. Dumbledore already dying and willing to sacrifice himself for Harry, Draco, Snape and all the students...) Under normal circumstances a horrible request, since it would split Snape's soul. But if Dumbledore would be able to transfer (part of) his own soul to Snape (not Harry) in "exchange"? I believe this would change the picture a bit. Maybe it would have a healing effect on a damaged soul as well as wounds that "run too deep for the healing." (OoTP p. 735)? I would like that. I tend to think of Snape as someone who has wasted his own and ruined others life(s). But since I also see somebody (my own interpretation of course) who changed sides and faced the consequences of what he had done, I wish to see an ending where he can go on with his life with less hatred and bitterness. Not so much of a heroic ending, but more like "OK, I did my part. Now leave me alone, and I won't bother anyone in the future". From msbeadsley at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 20:22:38 2005 From: msbeadsley at yahoo.com (msbeadsley) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 20:22:38 -0000 Subject: Not a Dark Mark ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139303 Well, I had already posted thrice (maybe the word will come back into common usage because of the HP Prophecy, heh) yesterday when Valky replied, and since I had enough to iron my hands for already, I decided to wait for a new day and maybe also some other responses. But since it's Thursday afternoon, and no one else has jumped in (at least according to the thread and what I can glean from 40 or so new message subject lines), I shall continue. Sandy: <> Valky: I knew I should have looked up the canon; my hat's off to you, Valky. :-) But really, for the sake of this debate I don't think (and didn't) that the difference between haing "angered Fenrir" and having "refused to follow DE orders" is relevant; having a child bitten is punitive (which I misspelled as "punative," having mixed it up in my head with "putative"--much like Hermione with "ehwaz" and "eihwaz" on her Ancient Runes exam and for which I did iron my hands); it is something the family has happen to them as a *punishment*, regardless of who puts in the work order for "one werewolf bite, child." It is not something that happens to families who happen to have a werewolf family friend. I thought Borgin would know this; it seemed incongruous to me that Draco would flash a werewolf bite at him and say, "Look, I/my family know a werewolf and I can send him after you." (I might have expected Malfoy to grin toothily and drool over Borgin's arm himself; if Draco is a werewolf with evidence to prove it, why (as I believe someone else already asked) does he need to threaten to send a bigger and badder one to check up on Borgin?) Sandy: <> Valky: So, are you saying Draco was a werewolf as far back as GoF? I chalked up some difference in his behavior as the years progress just to getting older, like Harry. But Draco on the train with his head in Pansy's lap feigning or forcing nonchalance, saying he might not be back next year because he's moved/moving up (*down*?) in the world, is the same insufferable little git who nearly got Buckbeak killed in PoA, IMO. He is still capable of that same patrician cool and supreme sense of entitlement in front of his peers; if he'd been inducted into the ranks of lycanthropy, considering that his fear of werewolves was well established in the very first book, I think the Draco we'd see afterwards (whenever that was) would be almost completely withdrawn. Or utterly manic; *something*: we'd see a profound, utter, *abrupt* change in him (like Harry in OoP), and we don't. What changes we do see can easily be chalked up to having a father recently jailed, an insane aunt recently added to the family dynamic (not just returned, as he can't really remember her from before) in place of his father, a much better, gut level, sense of what the return of Voldemort actually means (be afraid; be very afraid), and some emerging maturity. > Sandy: > > I think he'd be hiding in St. Mungos, having a nervous breakdown in the room next to Lockhart.>> > Valky: But we see Malfoy become more and more gray and ragged, desperate, and emotional *over the course of the book* as he takes up his tasks and discovers just how hard it is going to be to succeed, with the alternative being death. We don't see the dramatic, sudden shift I think would *have* to occur, say, after his first lycanthropic full moon. I don't see this as a nervous breakdown at all. If Malfoy had one, the attempt would have come to a halt; a person who has a "breakdown" stops functioning. (At least the ones I've seen the edges of and read about were much more dramatic than Draco's meltdown/s; he kept getting up, drying his face, and going on.) And I thought of yet another reason this doesn't work for me?there's no hint of it in "Spinner's End." Narcissa is there solely in an effort to get help from Snape for her son, and there is no hint that she has any concern with his state of being aside from or beyond trying to get him through the demands Voldemort is making of him. There would have been some mention of that same potion Snape made for Lupin in PoA, wouldn't there, if Snape had been supplying it? And wouldn't Narcissa have made *some* sort of reference to something that had *already* happened to Draco? Not to mention that the foreshadowing we got about Lupin in PoA seemed to be to be utterly absent for Malfoy in HBP: the moon boggart, Lupin's sick days out of class, Snape's setting of the werewolf essay. Okay, I think I'm done. Except...the other thing I had to iron my hands for was just jumping in (total wet blanket, IMO) and busily deconstructing this without thanking you for finding it and bringing John Granger and his website to my/our attention. It was very interesting. I really enjoyed it, even the Alchemy parts which I don't understand at all, and I recommend that everyone go back upthread and check it out anyway, regardless of what they think about Werewolf!Draco. Thanks, Valky. Sandy aka msbeadsley From sweety12783 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 20:22:13 2005 From: sweety12783 at yahoo.com (sweety12783) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 20:22:13 -0000 Subject: will Harry return to Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: <004d01c5af24$acc4a8a0$3e781652@thorburn> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139304 Derek Thorburn wrote: > I think, whilst we're discussing Harry's future education, we need to > consider whether or not Harry's really going to return to school. Well I do not think that Hogwarts will be reopened after Headmaster Dumbledore's murder at the school and the simple fact that he was killed by a teacher will guarantee this result. I think that Harry, Ron, and Hermione will use their year off to search for the Horcruxes and learning possible ways to destroy them. After Harry has defeated Voldermort, Harry will continue with his studies to become an Auror. The big question is will his friends be alive to continue with him. Sweety12783. From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 20:43:24 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 20:43:24 -0000 Subject: Possibly another slant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139305 budbondietti: > I believe that Draco's assignment from the DL was to create a means to > get his DE's into Hogwarts for a confrontation with DD to stop his > efforts to find the Horcruxes which he found out how DD was > progressing by using Harry's vision. I find it hard to believe that > the DL would not utilize any means of succeeding after all of the past > failures. I also have a problem believing that the DL would assign > such a gigantic assignment (doing in DD) to an unproven teen. > Completion of the path from B&B to Hogwarts would be a start to prove > Draco's worth and avenge his fathers incarceration. Amiable Dorsai: Go read chapter 2 again: Narcissa was of the opinion that Draco was given his asignment as a punishment for Lucius. I think she was most likely right. Voldemort probably never expected Draco to succeed. He expected to kill Draco for failing, and so twist the knife in the unavailable Lucius. I wonder how Draco's semi-success (he didn't manage to kill Dumbledore personally) will play with Old What's His Name? Amiable Dorsai From merpsiren at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 21:12:07 2005 From: merpsiren at yahoo.com (Kris) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 21:12:07 -0000 Subject: The Prophecy and Harry's Readiness to face Voldemort Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139306 Many have suggested the Harry is not ready to face Voldemort because he has yet to master the skills needed for the task ahead. I would suggest that after careful reading of "The Prophecy" that the abilities to "vanquish" the Dark Lord has nothing to do with *learned* skills but rather Harry was born with the abilities and everything was set in motion once Voldemort made the choice of which child was his greatest threat. For Harry to be "ready" to take on Voldemort for the final battle, he only needs to come to realization that he already has the abilites much like the end of POA. Pg 412 POA (US ed.) Hermione: Harry, I can't believe it You conjured up a Patronus that drove away all those dementors! That's very, very advanced magic " "I knew I could do it this time," said Harry, "because I'd already done it does that make sense?" Harry didn't master this skill at the final moments (yes, he had performed a patronus, but nothing close to this scale) but recognized that it must be possible because of what he had seen. Likewise, the prophecy tells Harry that he already has the power to vanquish the Dark Lord Harry need only to accept it as true and muster the courage to proceed (which won't be difficult for Harry). Text of the Prophecy: `The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches. Born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies . And the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not.. . And either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives.. . The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies .' Harry shows that at very critical moments, he has the abilities he needs even though he wasn't really aware of his own powers. Book 2: Opening the Chamber of Secrets with use of his newfound talent speaking Parseltongue Book 3: Conjuring a patronus and then a patronus strong enough to fight of a huge number of dementors. Book 4: Fighting off Imperious curse in Moody's class; Dueling with Voldemort. Book 6: At the end of HBP Co-apparating himself and Dumbledore from the cave to Hogsmeade. Kris. From n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 21:26:43 2005 From: n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com (n_longbottom01) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 21:26:43 -0000 Subject: will Harry return to Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: <004d01c5af24$acc4a8a0$3e781652@thorburn> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139307 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Derek Thorburn" wrote: > I think, whilst we're discussing Harry's > future education, we need to consider whether > or not Harry's really going to return to school. > At the end of HBP he specifically announces to > Ron and Hermione that he won't return, even if > it does open. This could be a natural reaction > to DD's death, or it could be a determination to > get on with the finding of the horcruxes and > finally vanquishing LV. > > Derek n_longbottom01: Fred and George set the precedent in OOTP when they left Hogwarts early, going on to become successful business men. I think if I didn't have this earlier example of students not completing their seven years of schooling, I would be less likely to believe that Harry wasn't going to be back at Hogwarts for his seventh year. If Harry discovers during the summer that one or more horcruxes is hidden somewhere at Hogwarts, then we may see Harry come back to Hogwarts as a student for at least part of the school year. Returning as a student would be the easiest way for Harry to have access to the places he may want to search at Hogwarts, without drawing to much attention to what he is doing. Harry's announcement that he isn't returning to Hogwarts, really throws things wide open. But the horcruxes are definitively going to be Harry's number one concern in the next book. If the horcruxes aren't at Hogwarts, he won't spend much time there. A lot of the story's major ties to Hogwarts have been cut. Snape and Draco won't be back for next school year. Dumbledore is gone. Harry is not planning to return as a student. Ron and Hermoine plan to join him. I didn't want to believe it when I heard that Hogwarts might not even reopen for Harry's last year, but when I look at it this way, I'm afraid that it might not. -n_longbottom01 From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 21:45:32 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 21:45:32 -0000 Subject: Draco's culpability (Was: My doubts about Snape being Evil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139308 > >>Jazmyn: > > Something people seem to refuse to consider that in fact, it is > > Draco that is resposible for Dumbledore's death. > >>Carol: > > I agree that Draco joined the Death Eaters of his own accord... > Betsy Hp: I completely disagree. For one thing, we don't know if Draco actually *is* a Death Eater. But for another, we know that Draco was selected for a suicide mission he was expected to fail. Draco was being used to punish his father's failures. Draco did *not* volunteer for this. Bellatrix makes that very clear, IMO. "Draco should be proud," said Bellatrix indifferently. "The Dark Lord is granting him a great honor. And I will say this for Draco: He isn't shrinking away from his duty, he seems glad of a chance to prove himself, excited at the prospect --" (HBP Scholastic p.33) The words used here ("granted" "duty" "chance") speak to an assignment, IMO. Narcissa speaks of Voldemort choosing Draco, not Draco choosing Voldemort. It is Voldemort's will that matters in this conversation. Draco is spoken of (and I think accurately) as a mere pawn. That he appears excited by this opportunity only speaks to Voldemort's power of persuasion, not Draco's free will. > >>Carol: > > He certainly bragged to Voldemort about knowing a secret way into > Hogwarts via the broken vanishing cabinets. At that point, he was > caught in his own trap. Voldemort ordered him to fix the cabinet, > bring Death Eaters into Hogwarts, and kill Dumbledore. Betsy Hp: Hmmm. It looks like you're saying *Draco* came up with the idea of being Voldemort's tool. That seems like a *really* big assumption, IMO. Here's what we know for sure: After the events of OotP, Lucius is in the doghouse with Voldemort and the Aurors know that Lucius is a Death Eater. And yet we're to suppose Voldemort was dropping by the Malfoy house for tea and conversation, willing to listen to a sixteen year old prattle on about Vanishing Cabinets? We know that Draco's task is given at the beginning of the summer. And we also know that Draco doesn't approach Borgin about his Vanishing Cabinet until the end of the summer. Two months is an awfully long time to wait to secure something that could very well be sold in the interim. Instead, I'd suggest that Voldemort assigns Draco the task of killing Dumbledore and leaves Aunt Bellatrix in charge of Draco's training. At some point Draco must have visited Montague in order to hear his Vanishing Cabinet story. (It had to be after the end of OotP because Montague needed to be whisked off to St. Mungo's at the end of the school year and he didn't sound up for conversation before then.) Draco has a brain wave. He shares his thoughts with his aunt but not his mother. (It's interesting to me that Draco is cut off from those who really care for him: his mother and Snape. Isn't this a common M.O. for training up RL suicide bombers?) > >>Carol: > > At the beginning of HBP, Draco is full of his own importance, > threatening Borgin and bragging to his friends, apparently in no > fear for his own life and his mother's. Betsy Hp: I think Draco buys the party line at first. After all, he follows what I believe were his aunt's orders and cuts himself off from his mother and Snape. But what's interesting to me is Draco's twitchy- ness when we first meet him in HBP. He's all nerves and excess energy. As excited as he no doubt is to finally be in the game, I suspect a part of him is worried that the game might not be all it's cracked up to be. > >>Carol: > By Christmas, however, he's desperate enough to try the cursed > necklace and the poisoned mead. Betsy Hp: I'm betting there was a deadline. I think he was expected to have acted by Christmas. That's why he starts to skip class assignments and quidditch games and sneaks out after curfew. The necklace was truely desperate. He *had* to know it would never make it past Filch. The whole thing smacks of a Hail Mary pass. I can understand why Dumbledore sees this as an example of Draco's lack of heart for the task. (The poisoned mead seems a bit more likely to work, but since Dumbledore lumps them together I guess he felt that the poison had little chance of working on him.) > >>Carol: > These contingency plans involve another crime, Imperioing Madam > Rosmerta. Betsy Hp: This is more of an aside, but was Draco *really* the one to Imperio Madam Rosmerta? Because if he was he's incredibly good at it. He has her under his control for almost the entire school year and yet *no one* including Dumbledore (who is noted for his perception) had any idea that Rosmerta was acting differently at all. > >>Carol: > > [Draco] disarms Dumbledore and leads the DEs up to the tower. Betsy Hp: I'd put this differently. Draco is *sent* up to the tower, where he manages to disarm Dumbledore. "I was supposed to be waiting up here when you got back..." (ibid p.590) Draco's use of the word "supposed" sounds like he was told to go up to the Tower and wait, not that he told the others, this is how it'll be. Also, he doesn't appear to be in charge at all when the other Death Eaters arrive on the Tower. > >>Carol: > Regardless of Snape's motives, you are again correct that he would > not have killed Dumbledore if Draco had not brought in the Death > Eaters and forced Snape's hand by activating the Unbreakable Vow. Betsy Hp: I'm pretty darn sure there was a time limit. Otherwise Draco would have been free to dance around his assigned task a bit more and I doubt he'd have been crying in the boys room, terrified that he and his family were going to die. If, by the end of the school year, Draco had failed to kill Dumbledore, Draco would have failed in his task. The Death Eaters being in the school had nothing to do with it. His task was to kill Dumbledore. "if it seems Draco will fail" (ibid p.36) is the wording of the final part of the Vow. A mere running down of the clock would have activated the Vow for Snape, and I'm quite sure Snape and Dumbledore knew this. > >>Carol: > > So where does Draco stand? He's a Death Eater by his own choice. Betsy Hp: It was *never* Draco's choice, if he's even a Death Eater at all. There were also several comments made about Draco's age. He's too young (at sixteen) to make the decision to become a Death Eater. > >>Carol: > He has twice attempted murder (via the necklace and the mead) and > nearly killed two fellow students in the process (directly or > indirectly, it's Snape who saves them). Betsy Hp: One wonders at Dumbledore culpability, especially with Ron, since Dumbledore knew what Draco was up to. I also wonder where that leaves the Weasley twins, who nearly killed Montague. Or Harry, for that matter, who nearly lead Hermione, Ginny, Ron, Neville and Luna to their deaths. Though I don't want to be too flippant here. Because I do agree that Draco is at fault for endangering the lives of two of his fellow students. Something Draco is well aware of, to his credit. (Which is *much* better than what could be said for the Weasley twins.) > >>Carol: > He has performed an Imperius Curse on Madam Rosmerta, itself > enough to send him to Azkaban. Betsy Hp: Again, I really question whether Draco is responsible for this. The work done to Rosmerta was quite masterful and as good a wizard Draco is, he's still a school boy with only a couple months dark arts training under his belt. > >>Carol: > He has allowed Death Eaters, including Fenrir Grayback, into the > school, making him partially responsible for Bill Weasley's > injuries. Betsy Hp: Yes, and again Draco recognizes, I believe, his fault in this. I think it's a credit to him that he is so horrified by Fenrir being sent and is so sickened by the thought that someone is dead because of it. > >>Carol: > > Draco is "innocent" only in the technical sense that he did not > cast the spell that killed Dumbledore. Betsy Hp: And yet "innocent" is exactly how Dumbledore described him. Draco *did* do wrong. He was seduced by Voldemort and Bellatrix into doing something that went against his nature. However, he chose to not complete the task and therefore received Dumbledore's blessing. So I think Snape has an innocent on his hands for whom he sacrificed much to *keep* innocent. I really see a strong tie into the story of Peter and Jesus in the book of John here. The three time repetition of "you're not a killer" was quite deliberate, I think. Betsy Hp From lady.indigo at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 19:50:19 2005 From: lady.indigo at gmail.com (lady.indigo at gmail.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 15:50:19 -0400 Subject: Harry's flaws and moral errors? was: Apologies and responsibility In-Reply-To: References: <63378ee705083113595efeb146@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <63378ee705090112504d69f32f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139309 Lupinlore wrote: > we have lost touch with some important aspects of social morality - > - righteous anger being one of them. There is even plentiful > theological, and if you will specifically Christian, justification > for it. One only has to think of Christ addressing the Pharisees > with stinging taunts, or the driving the moneychangers out of the > temple in a fit of rage. Jesus was not always kind or patient, and > sometimes displayed a towering temper when confronted by evil and > hypocrisy. Lady Indigo: "Righteous anger" like automatically seething at the entire Order, including adults who knew far more about what was going on, for doing what they thought was best for him? Or wishing Snape dead because he blames him for Sirius? (Whether or not Snape deserves death, none of the things Harry knew of then would warrent that kind of extreme.) And I'm not saying that neither of these things are excuseable on their own, as Harry's certainly allowed to make mistakes and have a normal grieving process, but again, I rarely feel like he learns anything or sees any consequences from it, or even has strong moments of sobriety. It just seems to get *worse* as he gets older. Plenty of other heroes have had righteous anger. Batman, for example, is a fountain of it; his whole origin is built on revenge. I've never felt as nervous about any them as I've felt about Harry. I wish I could explain why that is a little better, but it's not a complete refusal to acknowledge negative emotions on my part. I'd enjoy very little fiction at all if I felt that way, and some of my favorite protagonists have been flawed, rebellious, and sometimes even slightly out of their minds. Lupinlore: > I'm not sure what you mean by "Harry progressing to doing things > that in the adult world would get you arrested." Do you mean > throwing Sectumsempra at Draco? That's true, I suppose, but not > very relevant considering the context. As has been mentioned > before, given wizarding powers of healing, wizards just don't seem > to take physical assault nearly as seriously as muggles do. Lady Indigo: In my mind it doesn't matter. Harry had no idea what Sectumsempra did; it was like picking up a loaded gun without knowing whether it was a water pistol or an AK-47 and deciding it would be a good idea to *find out*. That curse could have been strong enough to kill, or it could have misfired and done something like amputate a limb, something that may have been beyond Pomfrey's potential to heal. Harry could have chosen to fire it in response to something as little as a taunt, instead of an Unforgiveable Curse. Whether or not it was just a student's notes, Harry had no idea what it was capable of or if there was a cure for it at all. I can't fathom how someone, even at the age of 16, even in a world with advanced healing, could ever see something labelled 'for enemies' and have their first urge be to use it and see what it does. Lupinlore: > As for the cheating accusation, I don't agree at all. Harry was > doing what he had been instructed to do -- i.e. prepare a potion. > He used somewhat different directions than the rest of the class, > it's true, however the potions he prepared were exemplery. Lady Indigo: And since Potions is like a slightly more complicated cooking class I'm unimpressed. Harry did good Potions work without the book, even in spite of Snape, and the OWLs illustrate this. But it's the notes that made his work anything extraordinary. Lupinlore: > He never claims to have invented the directions himself, Lady Indigo: But he let everyone save for his friends believe that he did. It's the classic setup of cartoons and teen sitcoms, where eventually the kid is going to be sent off to some special school and so he has to come clean, but the 'why it's bad to lie' lesson is typically taught when the protagonist is a good five years younger and he learns his lesson. Harry got all indignant at Hermione when she told him it was wrong, had to be caught in order for the truth to come out, tries to cover it up, and then was upset that he had to suffer for it. Though Snape's method of detention was incredibly sadistic even for him.) Lupinlore: > he did not gain these directions in a dishonest manner, Lady Indigo: What *would* have been a dishonest manner, then? Snape didn't give him permission to use the notes, neither did Slughorn, and they weren't some kind of officially approved hints and tips sheet. Lupinlore: > is not forbidden to use them, Lady Indigo: Since he never asked an authority figure for permission and then recieved detention for doing just that, how do you know? Lupinlore: > and offers to share them with his classmates. Lady Indigo: He offers the crib sheet to everyone. So? Lupinlore: > True, he receives praise from Slughorn, but it is obvious that > Slughorn is just seizing an excuse to butter him up. Had Harry > protested that he was following different directions, Sluggy would > undoubtedly have said "Nothing of it, dear boy! It just shows your > cleverness and initiative!" Lady Indigo: And as much as I love Slughorn, if I thought he was the last word on morality and ethics I'd certainly have no right to say anything about Harry. He'd have said exactly that, yes, because he has plenty of other reasons to want The Chosen One in his special circle. But he'd have been full of it. I also doubt he'd have subsequently bragged about Harry's Potions abilities to everyone he met. Harry also won Felix Felicis using those notes, though I do admit Hermione was being stubborn to refuse his advice. Lupinlore: > In any case, in no class that I have ever taught, and I have > taught many, would Harry's actions be considered cheating in any > way -- nor can I imagine any of my colleagues would have ever > looked upon them in that way. In the environment in which I now > work, a professional milieu outside of an academic setting, Harry > would be highly commended for initiative and flexibility of > thinking. Lady Indigo: Then please explain how it illustrates these things at all. It was Snape as a student who understood the principles of potions, their ingredients, the way they were formed and the theory behind them. It was Snape through his own love of the subject and, I'd imagine, added study and experimenting that helped him find methods that were more effective than what the text taught. It was Snape who remembered beozars as an effective shortcut to antidotes. Harry did none of this. If Harry had, through the Prince's notes, found a better way to understand the underlying theory of potion-making and WHY adding a counterclockwise turn or a sprig of somethingorother was a good idea, if that assistance had gotten him to the point where he could be just as good and even add his own little additions to the recipies, then I wouldn't call it cheating. But all the book did was feed him better answers. The beozar incident shows (and IMO proves) this especially. Harry took someone else's idea and presented it as his own. How is it anything else? Slughorn was a worse teacher than usual at that point, rushing straight through the explaination in an attempt to show Hermione off, but whether or not Harry would have understood the Equivalency Principle or whatever it was given enough time he had *no* idea what anyone was talking about just then. He'd have been completely lost. So he saw the Prince's idea, which only jogged his own memory after the fact (kind of like looking at someone's test paper and then saying 'oh yeah, I remember now' as if you'd always learned what you needed to learn), did what it told him to do and took the credit for it as his own. And at the end of the day, he still hadn't learned what the class was supposed to teach him. The best you could argue is that it's like buying a used textbook with the text already highlighted, though I think it's different in this case. It definitely doesn't mean he's 'a flexible thinker'. Morally flexible, maybe. When Harry does does excellent, inventive work *without* the book is when I'll think all the praise was deserved. Lupinlore: > If Harry had published the HBP's directions under his own name, > THAT would be plagiarism and theft of intellectual property, but > Harry does no such. Lady Indigo: No, he just lets Slughorn believe it was Harry's own idea. At one point to win a contest, no less. Lupinlore: > Similarly, in my current professional environment, Hermione > would recieve high formal marks, but would swiftly gain the > reputation of being myopic and hopelessly hidebound with literal > and restrictive interpretations, and her chances for promotion > would be dwindling rapidly. Lady Indigo: And I agree with that. Hermione's intelligent because her mind makes connections quickly and she works hard, but she's not inventive or flexible at all, and in a professional environment that'd be a problem. They're not in a professional environment, though, and won't necessarily work in the same sort of place you do later. And I don't dismiss her anger as *just* jealousy, because Harry's inventiveness isn't his own and Hermione more than anyone would feel how unfair this is. - Lady Indigo From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 21:50:48 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 21:50:48 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Life Debt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139310 Combined answers to Zgirnius, Also-September-19, Amiable Dorsai and Luckdragon. --- Zgirnius wrote, in message 139116: "I don't think Snape would have agreed to an Unbreakable Vow to protect Harry in the situation you outline. Your proposed theory says Snape would die if he were unable to prevent Voldemort from killing James. Why exchange this for a scenario in which Snape would die if he were unable to keep Voldemort from killing Harry? That had to seem equally unlikely, at the time. Especially as Harry is the *true* target of Voldemort, his parents are just obstacles, to be eliminated if they get in the way." Del replies: You're right, it doesn't make sense :-) However, this can be easily modified to: Lily made Snape promise to protect Harry against anyone but LV. She might even have added a caveat that Snape was to protect Harry as best he could as long as it didn't expose him as a much-needed spy for the Order. Such a Vow would still demand *a lot* from Snape, but it wouldn't pit him straight against LV like the Life Debt did. Anyway, as I said in my original post, I only added this UV bit to try and include Lily in the whole affair. The Life Debt Transfer, in itself, doesn't need that part to stand. --- Also-September-19 wrote, in message 139148: "I think the idea that you cannot be part of killing the person you owe a life debt to is a good working hypothsis - though I don't think there's any support for this in the text. In fact, I can't think of any place the workings of a life debt are explained." Del replies: I said as much in my original message :-) JKR *never* explained how a Life Debt works, which is quite strange considering that it is supposed to be such an important business. She reminded us in an interview that Peter owes a Life Debt to Harry, DD said (paraphrase) that LV wouldn't be happy to have a servant so indebted to Harry, and yet the Debt doesn't seem to prevent Peter from doing exactly what LV wants and we are not told what it's supposed to do anyway. It didn't prevent Peter from hurting Harry or from helping LV to prepare Harry's death. So what does it do exactly?? Also-September-19 wrote: "The problem with your (very very clever) idea of Snape transfering the debt to DD and then repaying it with saving DD from the curse of the ring (whatever that was) - is that it doesn't explain DD's absolute certainty about Snape throughout the book. He doesn't hesitate. (& we see with his treatment and opinion of Tom Riddle that he's perfectly capable of having reservations about someone, and still giving them the benefit of the doubt, but, as Harry says, not really trusting them.) I see no sign of these reservations about Snape." Del replies: Actually... There are two little episodes that do make me wonder whether DD didn't start to lose faith in Snape during the year. The first one is the much-talked-about Row in the Forest that Hagrid overheard. It went something like that, according to Hagrid: "I jus' heard Snape sayin' Dumbledore took too much fer granted an' maybe he - Snape - didn' wan' ter do it any more (...) it sounded like Snape was feelin' a bit overworked, tha's all - anyway, Dumbledore told him flat out he'd agreed ter do it an' that was all there was to it. Pretty firm with him. An' then he said summat abou' Snape makin' investigations in his house, in Slytherin." I kept the original account, because I wanted to underline that this is Hagrid speaking. IOW, *this is not a first-hand account by the narrator*. It's coloured by what Hagrid *thinks* was happening. And we know for a fact that Hagrid *never* imagined that Snape could betray DD, because when Harry told him that Snape had killed DD, he flatly refused to believe it. So could it be that Hagrid heard the words right, but completely misunderstood their context and sub-text? What if instead of being "overworked", Snape's tone was in fact challenging? What if Snape was basically telling DD: "now that I don't *have* to anymore, maybe I don't *want* to be your spy anymore?" What if Snape was basically telling DD that he wanted out of the Order business altogether? And what if DD was cornered into using the "you agreed to do it" card because he realised that Snape was just as unresponsive to the morality card as he used to be 20 years ago? The fact that DD spoke "flat out" to Snape, that he was "pretty firm" with him, indicates to me that this wasn't a conversation between a mentor and his trusted aide. It was a conversation between two people linked by a business agreement, or a promise, but *not* a common goal and understanding. DD offered no encouragement, no understanding, no help, not even morally. He just told Snape to do the job he'd agreed to do. Pretty cold IMO, like an employer talking to his mercenary. I also wonder if Hagrid got the reference to "Snape's house" right. He immediately explains that all the Heads have been asked to investigate their Houses, but what if DD was talking of a completely different kind of house? The second episode that makes me wonder, is towards the end of the book, when Harry goes to DD just before they go Horcrux-hunting. Harry confronts DD with his fresh knowledge that the Hog's Head eavesdropper was Snape, and demands to know how DD can trust Snape. Here goes: "'Professor... how can you be *sure* Snape's on our side?' Dumbledore did not speak for a moment; he looked as though he was trying to make up his mind about something. At last he said, 'I am sure. I trust Severus Snape completely.'" DD *does* hesitate, for the very first time. And he doesn't even answer the question. He just asserts that he "trusts" Snape. He pointedly doesn't give a ghost of a reason as to *why* he does. Could this be because he doesn't have a single reason to trust Snape anymore, apart from the fact that he wants to? His answer reminds me of what many people say when they are told that a friend or a relative is suspected of a crime: "That's impossible! I *know* they would *never* do that! I trust them completely!" Is this the situation DD is in? Of, and of course, there's the pleading by DD when Snape arrives on the top of the Astronomy Tower. What is DD pleading for exactly? Is he pleading for Snape to reconsider his newly-chosen path? So it seems to me that there's a possibility that DD might not be so sure of Snape after all, in HBP. Also-September-19 wrote: "Also, since we know the Dada job is cursed, why would Snape (evil or good) want it? The only real perk it comes with is a guarenteed exit from Hogwarts. It's not like the Dada teacher has access to magical books or object that other professors don't. Or at least I don't remember that coming up anywhere." Del replies: First of all, the perk you mentioned (the guaranteed exit from Hogwarts) might be *precisely* the one Snape was after all those years. As for an additional perk, I admit it has never come up, but there are hints. 1. LV's obsession with the DADA job. I'm sure Tom Riddle was excellent in pretty much every subject he studied. So why this fixation on the DADA? Why ask for this particular job twice, if all he really wanted was a chance to come back to school? Wouldn't it have been a better idea to offer to fill any vacant post that he was qualified for? That would have augmented his chances to be hired. But no, he twice specifically asked for the DADA job. 2. The fact that LV jinxed the DADA post *only*. Why do things half-heartedly? If LV wanted a chance to get an inside job at Hogwarts for himself or one of his DEs, why curse only one post? Why not curse them *all*? If DD had to replace all his staff every few years, that would give a much better chance to LV to get what he wants. But no, he focused only on the DADA job. 3. (This one is admittedly pretty weak :-) At the end of CoS, Lockhart was sent to rescue Ginny *alone*. No other teacher offered to help him. Granted, it could be that the rest of the staff only wanted to get rid of him. But it could also be that Lockhart had some special authority as the DADA teacher. 4. HBP reveals to us that Snape used to *love* Potions. He studied them in depth, enhanced many of them, *before* he even got to study them in class, apparently. So why should he be so bothered by the fact that he can't be DADA teacher? The guy loves his subject, he even loves the place (he kept his office in the dungeon even after getting the DADA job). And when he *finally* gets the DADA job, do we see him do *anything* out of the ordinary? Nope! He apparently doesn't jump on the opportunity to curse and hex his students (except for Harry, of course :-), he doesn't make any ripple worth reporting to us the readers. So *why* did he want the job in the first place, especially since he must have known about the curse?? I can see only two possibilities: he wanted out of Hogwarts but couldn't just hand in his resignation for some reason, so he was hoping the curse would do it for him; or he was after something that only the DADA Master position can give. --- Amiable Dorsai wrote, in message 139180: "What if it just comes down to this: As a consequence of Snape's indirect collusion in killing James, he is forced to avenge him? Or to help James' son do so? That is, only by colluding in Voldemort's destruction can Snape be rid of the debt and its (so far, hypothetical) consequences." Del replies: Interesting idea! However, I have a murder-splits-the-soul problem here. If a Life Debt, under specific circumstances, can force an indebted person to commit a murder, thus splitting their soul, then it should be considered Dark Magic. But nobody, not even DD, seems to have any problem with it. So, I don't know. --- Luckdragon wrote, in message 139201: "Perhaps it is simply a moral concept which really does not need to be upheld or has no bearing on an immoral person." Del replies: It's possible, of course, but I doubt it, because if it were, then JKR wouldn't make such a fuss out of the fact that Snape and Peter (two pretty immoral people) owe a Life Debt to the good guys. If a Life Debt is something that you can simply dishonorably choose to dismiss, then there's pretty much no point in Snape and Peter owing one. JMO, of course :-) Del From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 22:27:20 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 22:27:20 -0000 Subject: Harry's flaws and moral errors? was: Apologies and responsibility In-Reply-To: <63378ee705090112504d69f32f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139311 > Lady Indigo: > "Righteous anger" like automatically seething at the entire Order, including adults who knew far more about what was going on, for doing what they thought was best for him? Alla: Yes, I consider that one to be the righteous anger. After witnessing the murder of the classmate, after being used in resurrection of Voldie thingy, Harry was left to deal with his nightmares basically on his own - with NO help from anybody else. Moreover , Dumbledore forbade anybody including Ron and Hermione to tell Harry anything about what is going on. You know, I pretty much forgave Dumbledore after HBP. I thought he was wonderful with Harry in this book, but now I remember how mad I was at his treatment of Harry after GoF. Lady Indigo: It just seems to get *worse* as he gets older. Alla: Maybe because it is getting worse for Harry as he gets older? His loved ones keep dying protecting him? And the burden on his shoulders gets heavier and heavier to carry on? Lady Indigo: Plenty of other heroes have had righteous anger. Batman, for example, is a fountain of it; his whole origin is built on revenge. I've never felt as nervous about any them as I've felt about Harry. Alla: I don't share it at all. As Sandy said - Harry is exactly where he is supposed to be on good/bad scale, considering all that happened to him and in some aspects even better. IMO only of course. I doubt that I would be able to feel any pity for the chidhood of the man, who killed my parents for example. Carol: Though I don't usually agree with Alla about Snape, I do > think she's right that Dumbledore's words to Draco, "It is not your > mercy but mine that matters now," foreshadow Harry's mercy toward > Snape in Book 7. (Nevertheless, I foresee Snape as saving Harry before > the end, which will definitively demonstrate to Harry which side Snape > is on.) Alla: LOL! Thanks, Carol :-) Although I bet that Harry will do that thing ( the mercy one before the end), otherwise it sort of diminishes the gesture. He is not supposed to be sure which side Snape is on, after all and I am thinking that Snape is on his own. I think that after that happens, Snape may indeed do something useful for Harry as in repaying him or something. I don't think Severus Snape does many selfless gestures. Hmm, where is book 7? Alla From msbeadsley at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 22:29:31 2005 From: msbeadsley at yahoo.com (msbeadsley) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 22:29:31 -0000 Subject: Apologies and responsibility In-Reply-To: <63378ee705083113595efeb146@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139312 Lady Indigo: Harry's anger...well, considering the things he's been through since he was in diapers (do baby wizards and witches wear diapers; boy, there's an area magic could help!), he *should* be angry. Maybe not as angry as he was in OoP, but I (and some others) chalk this up to the Voldemort connection. In HPB (which really is Snape's book, in many ways), Harry really focuses all his anger on Snape, making him a scapegoat (a largely deserving scapegoat, more and more as the book progresses, but still). Harry needs to pass or pass through those tendencies eventually, but I think it will all prove to have been a sort of tempering forge. Regardless of who's evil and why, or who's good and why, the fact that Harry has all this rage and hate has to be and will be resolved at some point. But the real reason I had to come back to this thread is what you said about "...his tendency to do a lot of rulebreaking without much remorse or learning from his mistakes. I'm not talking about necessary rulebreaking..." And Harry is supposed to tell the difference between "necessary rulebreaking" and "rulebreaking without much remorse or learning from his mistakes" how, exactly? He is supposed to know "necessary" and "to fight against unfair things" (like Umbridge, whom he opposes at the risk of being eventually imprisoned) from where he should refrain or have remorse because--um, why, exactly? In our reading of much of what he does...letting a more intellectual friend ghostwrite some of his homework, sneaking out at night, making his way (and encouraging his friends to go, too) through safeguards and barriers put up by the authorities, hiding (he thinks) his Parseltongue ability, kidnapping a teacher (Lockhart, who needed kidnapping, of course) with one of those same friends, determining what it means to "use it well" and doing so with regards to his dad's Invisibility Cloak, taking advantage of Hermione's timeturner to foil no less an authority than the Wizarding government in a couple of regards, taking ownership of the Marauders' Map *twice*, the many instances of unfair advantage given him in the international tournament (which he went into, much like life, with innumerable inherent disadvantages), the only real guide WE as readers have about whether or not any particular instance of rulebreaking was advisable or not is how it works out in the end. Of course, Harry stinks at Divination... And, as has been said, this is a kid raised (more like lowered, I'd say) by Petunia and Vernon Dursley...not to mention the outright praise (and outright ENCOURAGEMENT: see Invisibility Cloak; see Timeturner) Harry receives (from the best guide to good in the books, Albus Dumbledore, per JKR) again and again for outcomes which are inescapably a direct *result* of rulebreaking. (And while his dip into Snape's thoughts in the Pensieve was, yes, rude, sneaky, inappropriate, and cause for an apology, it wasn't actually inspired by anything personal; Harry, as he's done throughout the series, was looking for information on/tools to help with the conundrum of the moment, wherever and however they became available.) And I would no more have expected Harry to give up that Potions textbook (although he did offer to share, something he has never failed at) than any of the other bits and bobs providence has provided him since his arrival at Hogwarts. Can you guide me through what you mean, otherwise, please? Sandy aka msbeadsley From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 22:34:08 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 22:34:08 -0000 Subject: Harry's character development In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139313 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quick_silver71" wrote: > quick_silver71: > > > Harry is already a good dueler. > > bboyminn: > > I'm not sure where you get this. Harry's dueling skill has never > > been more than adequate. At best, he as stumbled through each duel > > with a bit of luck and little more. > > > >... Harry is more like an annoying tedious fly that is bothering > > Snape. Snape's superiority over Harry seems easy and effortless > > to me. > quick_silver71: > Yet Harry has beat Snape...twice. Once in PoA and once in HBP. > Clearly Sbape has the advantage over Harry at the end of HBP but > Harry was able to beat an emotional Snape in PoA so I think that > it's a reversal of fortune (and a warning about emotional states). > > Harry is better then the DEs now and he is certainly as good a > fighter as McGonagall or Lupin. With the exception of Snape and > Voldemort is there a wizard walking that can call themself a > superior warrior to Harry Potter? > > quick_silver71 bboyminn: I'm not saying that Harry is without talent at dueling, but there is a big difference between talent and skill. You could be a talented soccer player, but at the same time, never have played a game of soccer in your life. Skill on the other hand is talent combined with a well-honed applied experience. In that same vein, I'm saying that while Harry may have a natural talent, he is hardly up to the task at hand. He needs razor sharp reflexes, and a reasonable compliment of offensive and defensive spells, as well as a above average knowledge of magical detection and discernment if he has any hope of getting past the enchantments that will be guarding the Horcruxes. Again, I am basing this on the skills that Harry apparently needs at this time. In the end, the plot may twist into situations where these obviously needed skills are not needed afteral. But that will only occur in HINDSIGHT. From the point where we are right now, it appears that Harry will have to duel with Voldemort and many DE's, and if he had any brains, he would start getting ready. That's one of the reasons I hoped the D.A. Club would continue in HBP, because it would have given Harry the knowledge and experience he desperately needed. Harry has a terrible and extremely difficult task ahead of him, and I still see him as woefully inadequately prepared to face it. Looking forward, Harry is going to have to make a monumental effort to get even remotely close to the skill and knowledge level necessary to defeat Voldemort. Perhaps, as I said, looking back, these skills will not be critical to the final resolution, but you can't know that in advance. All he knows now is that he has to find and destroy the Horcruxes then find and destroy Voldemort, and he is poorly prepared to do either. As far as Harry defeating Snape twice, I don't think so. The first occassion was in PoA in the Shrieking Shack, at a time when Snape would not have remotely thought that a group of students would attack him. He and Harry were not in a fight in the truest sense, so in a way, Harry's Disarming Charm was a sneak attack. The second time in the DADA class in HBP, Harry reacted out of context with the assignment and the task at hand, and further did nothing more than block a spell that he knew was coming. That hardly constitutes a dynamic dueling situation. I will concede that Harry has immense talent and some skill at fighting. He also has fierce determination and great courage and daring; all excellent characteristics for an effective fighter, but I still say he is hopelessly ill-prepared to face Voldemort. As I said in my previous post - "Harry NEEDS to practice his non-verbal skill but he isn't. Harry needs to practice his Occlumency but he's not. He needs to refine his fighting skill, but he's not. He need to learn more complex and powerful curses, both offensive and defensive, but he's not. The poor boy can't relie on pure dumb luck forever." Harry is not currently even remotely able to take on the task that he appears to have to take on. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 22:47:36 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 22:47:36 -0000 Subject: Weasley Spy? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139314 Betsy Hp: Okay, so this is a bit of a crackpot!theory, but I was thinking (yes, yes, my first mistake) about Molly Weasley's wonderful clock and how the entire family is marked as being in "mortal peril". And it occurred to me that perhaps one of the Weasleys is a spy for Voldemort. That would indeed put the other members of the family in mortal peril because the spy could be discovered at any time. And then either the spy or the discoverer could be killed. Which leads to the next question: Who's the spy? Percy Weasley: He seems the obvious choice as he's the outsider, but the thing is, he *really* is the outsider. He's the only Weasley not in the Order AFAWK, and so therefore would be of little use to Voldemort. Ginny Weasley: What with her exposure to Voldemort in CoS she could well be the spy. But JKR gushed on so enthusiastically about what a great girl she is for Harry. Or could that have been a deliberate mislead? Charlie Weasley: I think he's fairly easy to dismiss because he's never there. Harry barely even knows him. But, with the wedding coming up Charlie will be newly introduced. So maybe he shouldn't be dismissed so casually. Molly Weasley: I don't think she's cunning enough to be a spy, frankly. And Voldemort killed her two brothers, so it's personal for her. However, what if Voldemort threatened her family? Would Molly cave into that sort of pressure? Arthur Weasley: He loves Muggles so darn much it's hard to see him buying into the Death Eater philosophy. And he's got pretty strong principles so I'm not sure Voldemort could blackmail him. or could he? Bill Weasley: He got attacked and nearly killed by Fenrir during the Hogwarts battle, and that should give him a pass. *But* Fenrir is such a wild card that I'm not sure that gaurantees anything. Ron Weasley: He's the Weasley we know the best, and we saw plenty of him in HBP. Frankly, I didn't see any hints of suspicious behaviour so I feel pretty good about giving Ron a pass. Fred Weasley: He killed a small furry animal by bludgeoning it to death (shades of young Tom Riddle?). And he very nearly killed a classmate with no signs of remorse. He's the more ends driven twin and seemed fine with a little blackmail. Would he be willing to go further in order to ensure his success? George Weasley: He also nearly killed a classmate and showed no signs of remorse. He's the more personable twin, but does that suggest a more manipulative mind? At this point, I'm leaning more towards the twins. Isn't it strange that their U-No-Poo signs have gone unremarked on by the Death Eaters terrorizing Diagon Alley? It could be both of them, but I think it'd be more bang-y if it was just one. Or, I could be crazy. Thoughts? Betsy Hp From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 22:56:17 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 22:56:17 -0000 Subject: will Harry return to Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139315 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "n_longbottom01" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Derek Thorburn" > wrote: > > > I think, whilst we're discussing Harry's > > future education, we need to consider whether > > or not Harry's really going to return to school. > > ... > > > > Derek > n_longbottom01: > > ...edited... > > If Harry discovers during the summer that one or more horcruxes is > hidden somewhere at Hogwarts, then we may see Harry come back to > Hogwarts as a student for at least part of the school year. > Returning as a student would be the easiest way for Harry to have > access to the places he may want to search at Hogwarts, without > drawing to much attention to what he is doing. > >...edited... > > -n_longbottom01 bboyminn: I think we need to make a distinction between Harry returning to /School/ and Harry returning to /THE/ school. Certainly Harry will return to the school many times and for many reasons, but I don't see Harry returning to /School/ as a student until this whole Voldemort thing is resolved. Further, I don't think Harry needs any pretense to come back to the school. If he comes - he comes, the reason why he is there is the business of very few people beyond those closest to him. He may come for private lessons to refine his skills. He may come to look for clues or use the library. He may come to look for Horcruxes. He may come to talk to the painting of Dumbledore. He may come to consult with the staff. But again, he will come and go as he pleases, making few if any excuses to anyone. Harry has already said he is not coming back to school, and I think for the moment we have no choice but to take him at his word. Stopping Voldemort is a much higher priority than getting a few NEWTs. But at the same time, the school is a very valuable resource and a safe haven, consequently, Harry will return there many times and for many reason. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Sep 1 23:01:18 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:01:18 -0000 Subject: Apologies and responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139316 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > True, Harry does take out his anger on the relatively innocent, > sometimes (and I'm not at all sure Ron and/or Hermione are blameless in the situations where Harry yells at them), but let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone. Unfortunately, we ALL take our anger out on inappropriate targets, sometimes. And, as I say, I'm not sure that Ron and/or Hermione don't have some of it coming, much of the time. For that matter, the entire wizarding world is socially retarded in many ways --physical assault wasn't always taken very seriously in the muggle world of the nineteenth century, which is the world on which so much of the Potterverse for good, or I will acknowledge often for ill, is based. Pippin: Everybody does it? Socially retarded wizarding world? They had it coming??? Y'know, it's amazing how much like a Snape apologist a Harry apologist can sound. Jo strikes again! Lupinlore: > As for the cheating accusation, I don't agree at all. Harry was > doing what he had been instructed to do -- i.e. prepare a potion. He used somewhat different directions than the rest of the class, it's true, however the potions he prepared were exemplery. He never claims to have invented the directions himself, he did not gain these directions in a dishonest manner, is not forbidden to use them, and offers to share them with his classmates. Pippin: Only Ron and Hermione, IIRC. What about the others? And what about Hermione's objection that the HBP's spells and techniques weren't likely to be Ministry approved? It's fine to experiment, but I hope that lab of yours isn't in the habit of using human guinea pigs without their consent. I hope it doesn't allow teenagers to download anonymous formulae from the internet, pass them off as their own work, and prepare them for the first time in a in a classroom, potentially exposing other students to harmful or explosive mixtures. And I certainly hope it doesn't lie about the source of its information, as Harry did when he was finally asked. Harry had no understanding of the theory behind the HBP's innovations, but he was taking credit for them as if he did. As others have said, he'd have been caught and embarrassed sooner or later. Harry knew there was a good chance Slughorn wouldn't approve of crib notes -- why else would he think he needed to hide them? Pippin From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 23:02:05 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:02:05 -0000 Subject: Draco's culpability (Was: My doubts about Snape being Evil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139317 > Betsy Hp: For one thing, we don't know if Draco > actually *is* a Death Eater. a_svirn: Yes, we know this. We might not know for sure whether or not he has the Mark yet, but what does that matter? For all intends and purposes he *is* a DE. He acknowledges Voldemort as his Master, he embraces his ideology (or at least what he thinks this ideology is), and he looks forward to the final victory of the Dark. Most importantly, he pledged himself to his cause and carries Voldemorte's orders out diligently. What else could the Dark Lord wish in his servant? > Betsy Hp: But for another, we know that Draco > was selected for a suicide mission he was expected to fail. Draco > was being used to punish his father's failures. Draco did *not* > volunteer for this. Bellatrix makes that very clear, IMO. > > "Draco should be proud," said Bellatrix indifferently. "The Dark > Lord is granting him a great honor. And I will say this for Draco: > He isn't shrinking away from his duty, he seems glad of a chance to > prove himself, excited at the prospect --" (HBP Scholastic p.33) > > The words used here ("granted" "duty" "chance") speak to an > assignment, IMO. a_svirn: Yes, of course it is an assignment. But I don't quite see what his receiving orders from Voldemort has to do with the fact that he's joined on his own volition. After all, that's what servants do: receive orders, try to please their masters and get punished if they don't. And in HBP that Draco made it clear he was quite keen to join, after which, yes, he got his first glorious assignment. > Betsy Hp: > It was *never* Draco's choice, if he's even a Death Eater at all. > There were also several comments made about Draco's age. He's too > young (at sixteen) to make the decision to become a Death Eater. > > a_svirn: In principle, yes, he's too young to make the choice. The fact remains, however that he did or there would have been no DE on Hogwarts grounds. From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Thu Sep 1 23:10:22 2005 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:10:22 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Apologies and responsibility In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43178A5E.1020808@btopenworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139318 pippin_999 wrote: > > Y'know, it's amazing how much like a Snape apologist a Harry apologist > can sound. Jo strikes again! > Oh, she is wonderful in exposing double standards. :-) Just how amusing it is that Slughorn was called all kinds of names for his love of sweets: self-absorbed, hedonist, greedy, selfish and what not. But there is another elderly wizard, who loves sweets so much he names his passwords after them - but everyone finds it endearing. Irene From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 23:24:34 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:24:34 -0000 Subject: The Prophecy and Harry's Readiness to face Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139319 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kris" wrote: > Many have suggested the Harry is not ready to face Voldemort because > he has yet to master the skills needed for the task ahead. I would > suggest that after careful reading of "The Prophecy" that the > abilities to "vanquish" the Dark Lord has nothing to do with > *learned* skills but rather Harry was born with the abilities and > everything was set in motion once Voldemort made the choice of which > child was his greatest threat. > > For Harry to be "ready" to take on Voldemort for the final > battle, he only needs to come to realization that he already has the > abilites much like the end of POA. > > ...edited... > > > Harry shows that at very critical moments, he has the abilities he > needs even though he wasn't really aware of his own powers. > > Book 2: Opening the Chamber of Secrets with ... Parseltongue > Book 3: Conjuring a patronus > Book 4: Fighting off Imperious curse ...; Dueling with Voldemort. > Book 6: ... HBP Co-apparating himself and Dumbledore ... to > Hogsmeade. > > > Kris. bboyminn: Once again, I remind people of the distinction between having talent and having skill. In the case of having Power, it means nothing if that power is not refined into the skill to apply the power. We all have the power to read, but it doesn't do us any good if no one teaches us how. We all have the power of language, but if no one teaches us how to speak Armenian then we are not going to be able to do it. Regardless of any innate talent or power Harry has, he still appears to have to face a horde of DE's and he appears to have to kill Voldemort. From the philosophical perspective of an outsider, it is easy for us to speculate that Harry already has all he needs to defeat Voldemort. But from Harry's perspective, from what he knows and what he believes, he has a long long long way to go before he is able to accomplish the task at hand. I personally think it would be foolish for Harry to not embark on a regiment of intense training in the art of dueling and the necessary compliment of charms, spells, and curses that go with it, as well as increasing his knowledge of the detection of magical presence and detection of magical residue. It's clear from their adventure in the cave that Harry could never have accomplished the level of magical discernment displayed by Dumbledore. In fact, anytime you think Harry may be ready to face Voldemort, simply compare his skill and knowledge to that of Dumbledore, and you will see how woefully inadequate Harry is. Harry has a lot to learn, and very little time to learn it. Certainly he will not learn anything near the level of knowledge Dumbledore accumulated in 150 years, but he still needs far more knowledge and skill than he has. True, in the end, when we can all look back on this, we may see that Harry did indeed possess the very innate power needed to vanquish the Dark Lord, but Harry doesn't know that. He needs to start where he's at, evaluate what he needs, and begin working toward that goal. To do any less would be foolish. As it stands now, with only one book left, there are going to have to be tremendous short-cut to achieve any of the obvious goals. Finding the Horcruxes from current knowledge is a lifetime occupation that may still be impossible. The only way around it is a short-cut. Voldemort brings them all together in one place, for example, or Snape/Draco helps Harry find them and get past the protective enchantments. There is far more to the plot from Harry's current perspective that simply 'the power the Dark Lord knows not'. Again, Harry has a lot of work to do and very little time to do it. At least that's how I see it. Steve/bboyminn From Sherry at PebTech.net Fri Sep 2 00:03:17 2005 From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:03:17 -0000 Subject: will Harry return to Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139320 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > > Further, I don't think Harry needs any pretense to come back to the > school. If he comes - he comes, the reason why he is there is the > business of very few people beyond those closest to him. He may come > for private lessons to refine his skills. He may come to look for > clues or use the library. He may come to look for Horcruxes. He may > come to talk to the painting of Dumbledore. He may come to consult > with the staff. But again, he will come and go as he pleases, making > few if any excuses to anyone. > Amontillada: How...useful for Harry that he will be an adult (legally, in WW). Harry's 17th birthday will be an important turning point, not only because the special protection of his blood-kinship with the Dursleys will end, but because he will be free to choose his own course of action. Since they're older than Harry, Ron and Hermione will also be adults. I agree with Steve that Harry may very well not be enrolled at Hogwarts in Book 7. But what about his two friends? I think that at least one of them will be in school at Hogwarts, because of how much they can do to help Harry as a student there. That ties in to the fact that... Steve: > But at > the same time, the school is a very valuable resource and a safe > haven, consequently, Harry will return there many times and for many > reason. Amontillada: For example, seeking information about the magic that Voldemort may be using, and magic that may be used against him. Hogwarts surely has, if not THE best, than one of the best libraries in the European WW. Hermione has shown herself time and again to be a champion at finding valuable information in the tomes there. She'll be invaluable to Harry if she can dig into them when he needs to learn something, or find out if anything has ever been said about something. I hadn't thought of Hogwarts as a safe haven in this particular context. Why not? (I ask, banging myself on the head). I'm very sure that Hogwarts is still one of the safest possible places in wizarding England. The castle has no doubt had protective magic worked on it by many witches and wizards; the magic protecting the hidden Stone in SS/PS would be like a miniature illustration of how this is possible. I suspect that Hogwarts and 12 Grimmauld Place will become the "bases of operations" between which Harry will maneuver in Book 7. Who else will be based in/working out of them? Amontillada From msbeadsley at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 01:12:08 2005 From: msbeadsley at yahoo.com (msbeadsley) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 01:12:08 -0000 Subject: Harry's flaws and moral errors? was: Apologies and responsibility In-Reply-To: <63378ee705090112504d69f32f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139321 Instead of arguing morality, maturity, or getting bogged down in that morass, I'm going to try to just stick to a couple of canon points here: This is closer to canon than what Rita Skeeter wrote about Harry was to Harry in reality, but it still isn't canon. Canon states, not what Harry *could* have done, and didn't, but that when Harry found Malfoy crying in MM's bathroom, someplace he wasn't supposed to be, either, Malfoy (in apparent embarassment and anger) attacked Harry first: he pulled out his wand first and cast the first hex. They duelled, with the spells failing to land and getting more serious, until Harry slipped and fell to the floor (because of pouring water from the cistern their duel had smashed) and heard Draco's "Cruci?", a spell he was all too familiar with (and one punishable by imprisonment, to boot). Harry, in a somewhat desperate situation (falling down and duelling from the floor not being an advantageous position), used the spell from the book that has been so helpful (and not at all harmful) to him all year. See my previous paragraph, and furthermore, "have their *first urge* (emphasis mine) be to use it and see what it does" is, IMO, edging back up to Rita Skeeter's level of realistic reportage again; canon says that at *least* two weeks passes between Harry reading the spell in the Potions textbook and his using it; Apparition practice in the village and the Apparition test both take place, and they are separated by a "fortnight." (Reference chapters 21-24.) Sandy aka msbeadsley, beginning to think that Lady Indigo, as someone closer to the age of the ostensible target audience than many here, actually has some pretty salient points to make about how worrisome Harry's slow rise in some regards to the challenge is proving; us old farts may just be jaded and therefore somewhat lackadaisically convinced that he will figure it all out, because experience has shown us that youth always does, eventually... From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Sep 2 00:12:15 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:12:15 -0000 Subject: Apologies and responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139322 > Pippin: > Everybody does it? Socially retarded wizarding world? They had it > coming??? > > Y'know, it's amazing how much like a Snape apologist a Harry apologist > can sound. Jo strikes again! Lupinlore: Chuckle. True, true. The difference, of course, is that Harry deserves a break whereas Snape, being an evil and worthless piece of you-know-what, not to mention a serial committer of emotional child abuse, does not. :-) > Pippin: > > And what about Hermione's objection that the HBP's > spells and techniques weren't likely to be Ministry approved? Lupinlore: And since when is the Ministry's rulings ever been good for anything? Pippin: It's > fine to experiment, but I hope that lab of yours isn't in the habit of > using human guinea pigs without their consent. I hope it > doesn't allow teenagers to download anonymous formulae from > the internet, pass them off as their own work, and prepare them > for the first time in a in a classroom, potentially exposing other > students to harmful or explosive mixtures. And I certainly hope > it doesn't lie about the source of its information, as Harry > did when he was finally asked. Lupinlore: Chuckle. No, and we are not in the habit of using magic to solve our problems, either. We are, however, in the habit of rewarding people who use information in the public sphere to perform their assignments in an exemplery way. Harry WAS taking credit for his own work. That he had used somewhat different instructions, handed to him by his professor in a textbook that had been sitting in the school cupboard, is totally irrelevant. Potions, from what we have been shown, is not taught at Hogwarts as a theoretical art. It seems to be purely practical -- here is the formula, make the potion. Now memorize and repeat. Harry performs his assignment -- he makes the potion. If we give someone an assignment and say, do this and here are some instructions, and they find better instructions in the public domain on the internet (and the instructions in the HBP book were VERY much in the public domain) we congratulate them heartily and on initiative and creativity and mark them down for early promotion. Pippin > Harry had no understanding of the theory behind the HBP's > innovations, but he was taking credit for > them as if he did. As others have said, he'd have been > caught and embarrassed sooner or later. Lupinlore: And once again, potions at Hogwarts is not a theoretical art, from everything we've been shown. The method is: here's the recipe, make the potion. Harry makes exemplery potions. The fact that he does not understand the theory is irrelevant, since as far as we can see nobody understands much theory about anything at Hogwarts (it really is more of a trade school than a liberal arts institution). Pippin > Harry knew there was a good chance Slughorn wouldn't approve > of crib notes -- why else would he think he needed to hide them? > Because they were giving him an advantage over Draco Malfoy, a person whom he believes, correctly, to be in league with the vilest darkness in physical existance. Beside that, I wouldn't expect him to act any other way, on a moral basis or any other. Lupinlore From rlai1977 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 01:20:17 2005 From: rlai1977 at yahoo.com (rlai1977) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 01:20:17 -0000 Subject: Draco and Sirius (was Re: Apologies and responsibility) In-Reply-To: <63378ee7050831175351fb1c84@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139323 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, wrote: > And I would usually agree with you there in terms of reality. I > just think that in Rowling's mind this is less so. Draco's never > been excused from how he acts based on who his father is, though > JKR's beginning now to flesh him out a bit with the fact that > while he talks a big evil game he doesn't have anything to back it > up with. The way I see it, Draco's arc is about a boy who has every reason to become as bad as his father, and yet doesn't. People are product of nature and nirture, and finally their choices. I think by the end of HBP it would seem that while Draco, the son of a DE, has been following daddy's footsteps for the past 17 years, is starting to re-examine his stance and might, just *might* choose to walk a different path. >Besides, considering all the pressure put on Draco and > the way his father screams at him for being beaten by a Mudblood > female, I'm not sure that Draco's home life is as free of problems > as you think, whether or not he's been pampered. Oh I agree! Instead of saying he has a "good" relationship with Lucius, which would suggest that their relationship is "healthy" which it definitely isn't, I should've just said that they er, "got along". Draco doesn't seem to realize that what Lucius does to him is verbal abuse/mind control, at least not to the extent it drives him to an antagonistic position to Lucius. > I also don't know where I ever excused Snape his prejudices, > though since he himself was a halfblood and the only time we see Oh I don't think you *excused* Snape's prejudices, just that I think you are cutting him more slack for reasons I don't quite agree with. Firstly, being a half-blood necessary means not much prejudices to begin with? Then what is Voldemort, a character from another series ^^? > him expressing anything along those lines is towards Lily, which I >believe was out of embarrassment/trying to save face (wrongly, of course!), I doubt he even had those prejudices very much to begin >with. The first time Draco called Hermione a mudblood, which was coincidentally the first time he ever used that word in canon, was when Hermione humiliated him in front of the Griffindor and Slytherin teams by pretty much saying he bought his way to the team instead of on his own talent. Of course at that time Draco was already being mean to the Gryffindor team (hence Hermione butted in), but nevertheless the two situations were quite similar (I believed intentionally so)- Draco, like Snape, was humiliated, and the first thing they thought of to insult the girl with was a racist slur. I am not excusing Draco nor Snape here, simply point out the similarity. >He joined the Death Eaters out of a need for power and attention, The reason Snape joined the DEs was never revealed, nor implied, what you are saying here is a *theory*. He could very well have joined because he was at the time misguided to believe in pure blood supremacy, nothing in canon goes against that. But the fact that he had willingly joined a group that was all about blood prejudice, kind of suggests to me he did have quite a bit of prejudice himself. >in my mind, not because he wanted the wizarding world pure. Not to mention I brought Draco up as completely separate > from Snape to begin with. True, my bad to jump in and focus on just one segment of your post ;-) It just so happens that Sirius being a good example of how one can (implied: easily) fight off the prejudices their parents pass on to them, and that Snape was never a big racist the way Draco is etc are two of my biggest pet peeves in this fandom- I just don't get them. RP From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 23:54:05 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:54:05 -0000 Subject: Anger, Sectumsempra and cheating (was Apologies and responsibility) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139324 Lupinlore wrote: "True, Harry does take out his anger on the relatively innocent, sometimes (and I'm not at all sure Ron and/or Hermione are blameless in the situations where Harry yells at them)," Del replies: Are you saying that they should be blamed for not breaking a *promise* they had been forced to make to DD of not giving Harry any detail in their letters? Then by the same token, I guess you are also blaming Harry for not breaking the promise he made to DD of obeying his every command in the Cave, and for deliberately poisoning DD? Let's be serious: Harry had *no right* to yell at Ron and Hermione for not doing what he wanted them to do. He has no right to demand anything from them to start with, and he has no right to expect them to break their promise just so he can have his way. I don't care how much stress he was under, they had made a promise, and they had every right in the world to keep it. Are you also saying that Ron and Hermione should be blamed for interacting in a way that Harry doesn't like? So they bicker. So what? It's their right. If Harry doesn't like it, let him walk away. He has no right to shout at them for doing it, he is not their parent or anything. I'm a bit surprised that so many people still consider that Harry's anger in OoP was normal and OK. OoP is the book where Harry was in permanent contact with LV's mind and emotions. So how can it be a coincidence that throughout that book, and in that book *only*, Harry displays a much nastier temper than usual? It is no coincidence to me, it's pretty obvious to me that Harry was very heavily influenced by LV's personality. All those fits of unrighteous anger, this desire to dominate others, to make them act as he wants, to have his way, they come straight from LV! The real Harry is not like that at all. Even when devoured with jealousy in HBP, he never gives in to his impulses to beat the life out of Dean, he doesn't do or say *anything* that shows to Dean that he's displeased with him in any way. Hey, he even offers the guy a place on the Quidditch team! Now, *that* is the Harry I know and like. Lupinlore wrote: "we have lost touch with some important aspects of social morality -- righteous anger being one of them. There is even plentiful theological, and if you will specifically Christian, justification for it. One only has to think of Christ addressing the Pharisees with stinging taunts, or the driving the moneychangers out of the temple in a fit of rage. Jesus was not always kind or patient, and sometimes displayed a towering temper when confronted by evil and hypocrisy." Del replies: Not a good idea to bring Jesus in the mix :-) First, Jesus showed anger in only two occasions, if my memory serves me well. Both times, he chased the money-changers out of *his Father's* House. His anger was never about himself: it was about the respect due to God. Jesus never got angry about anything people did to *him*. It's only when he came accross people who showed blatant disrespect for God and committed a hideous sacrilege by carrying on a very secular (and some say evil - some theories have it that the money-changers were robbing the faithful with their artificially inflated exchange rates) task right inside the walls of the sacred Temple, all the while pretending to be working for Him, that he reacted strongly. Compare that with the many times in OoP when Harry got angry in his own interest only. "Nobody tells me anything", "you annoy me", "you don't believe me", and so forth and so on. Those are episodes of selfish anger, not at all comparable with Jesus' righteous anger. Second, Jesus also said things like (King James Version): Matthew 5: 21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. 38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? So, well, let's not drag Jesus into this, OK :-) ? --- Concerning Sectumsempra, the thing that really bothers me is how could Harry be stupid enough to try it on a human being?? Levicorpus wasn't labeled "for enemies", and yet it's hardly something one would use on their friends. Sectumsempra was clearly labeled "for enemies", so Harry should have *known* to be cautious in trying it. *Especially* since he didn't know the counter-curse!! This is EXACTLY the same kind of mistake he made when he jumped into Snape's Pensieve: he gave in to curiosity, without ever wondering how he would get out of it. The Levicorpused!Ron incident should have made him wary of trying a curse whose counter he didn't know. But no, he was itching to try it, so ahead he went... Harry, Harry, Harry... If at least he had tried it on an animal or even an object first, just to get an idea of what it did! --- On to cheating now. Lupinlore wrote: "Harry was doing what he had been instructed to do -- i.e. prepare a potion." Del replies: No, he wasn't. There was a textbook assigned for the class, and the unspoken rule was that students would work out of that book. If a RL chemistry student started using chemist!Daddy's notes to do their class work instead of the teacher's instructions, I don't think the teacher would be happy. Hermione doesn't bring other books to class, and that's because the unspoken rule is that you follow the instructions in the designated class book. Lupinlore wrote: "He never claims to have invented the directions himself," Del replies: By not saying the truth when he realised that other people, including the teacher, thought that the directions came from him, he committed a lie by omission. Lupinlore wrote: "he did not gain these directions in a dishonest manner," Del replies: Not at first. But when he deliberately gave the wrong book back to Slughorn, he acted dishonestly. He pretended to give back the book he had been lent, when in fact he gave another one. From then on, all the directions he received from the book were indeed obtained in a dishonest manner. Lupinlore wrote: "and offers to share them with his classmates." Del replies: Only when that suits him. He didn't give the Bezoar hint to Ron. Lupinlore wrote: "True, he receives praise from Slughorn, but it is obvious that Slughorn is just seizing an excuse to butter him up. Had Harry protested that he was following different directions, Sluggy would undoubtedly have said "Nothing of it, dear boy! It just shows your cleverness and initiative!"" Del replies: That's not the point. What Slughorn would or wouldn't do doesn't matter. What matters is what Harry did and didn't do. And the fact is that he deliberately let Slughorn believe that he, Harry, was the inventor of the enhancements, which was not true. Lupinlore wrote: "In any case, in no class that I have ever taught, and I have taught many, would Harry's actions be considered cheating in any way -- nor can I imagine any of my colleagues would have ever looked upon them in that way." Del replies: You're lucky. In all classes I've ever been, what Harry did would have been considered characterised cheating. Being caught using someone else's notes was a very sure way to achieve a zero. In fact, just *having* the notes with us garanteed a zero, whether or not we used them! The whole point of doing our own experiments was to see how well we could do when following a particular protocol. Having notes that gave us shortcuts or that provided us with ways to go around the weak points of the protocol defeated the whole point of us making those experiments. It's like putting an engine on your bike before entering a bike race. It's cheating. Lupinlore wrote: "In the environment in which I now work, a professional milieu outside of an academic setting, Harry would be highly commended for initiative and flexibility of thinking." Del replies: *Trying* the enhancements to see what they do is indeed a sign of initiative and flexibility of thinking. But just applying them without understanding in the least how they work is not a sign of anything, except of choosing the easy way. Lupinlore wrote: "If Harry had published the HBP's directions under his own name, THAT would be plagiarism and theft of intellectual property, but Harry does no such." Del replies: Was it his name that appeared next to all those great grades, or was it Snape's? Harry presented all the modifications as his own, he *never* said they came from Snape. In my eyes, this is like a junior research assistant presenting a team's findings without ever mentioning his senior partner. Lupinlore wrote: "Similarly, in my current professional environment, Hermione would recieve high formal marks, but would swiftly gain the reputation of being myopic and hopelessly hidebound with literal and restrictive interpretations, and her chances for promotion would be dwindling rapidly." Del replies: Yes, but Potions class is a formal environment. It is an academic environment where the students are supposed to work by the book unless specifically told otherwise. The fact is that Harry did not follow the class instructions, so he couldn't be tested against his fellow classmates. By pretending to be following the rules when he was using someone else's notes, he cheated. It's that simple for me. JMO, of course :-) Del From jmrazo at hotmail.com Fri Sep 2 02:19:16 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 02:19:16 -0000 Subject: Trelawney's Prediction/How like your father In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139325 > vmonte: > I found Marta's website (she is an artist that draws Harry Potter > pictures for the Lexicon) yesterday. Here is a link to a cute picture > she drew of Harry and Ginny. > > http://www.artdungeon.net/hbp/template.php?p=happyhour Ahhh, my eyes!!!!!! I was just starting to moderate my ginny hate and you had to go and post that. *sigh* phoenixgod2000 From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Sep 2 02:29:53 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 02:29:53 -0000 Subject: Not a Dark Mark ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139326 Valky: > > Throughout HBP Draco starts to look more and more sickly. He keeps > > disappearing. In Borgin and Burkes he shows Borgin something that > > frightens him, Harry thinks its a Dark Mark, but how can we be > > sure. Can we even really be sure that a Dark Mark would frighten > > Borgin? When Snape showed Fudge his burning Dark Mark, it didn't > > frighten him much, and there are many in the WW who don't even > > know what they are. Well it could be a Dark Mark, but since there > > *is* reason for doubt, then why don't we call it a Werewolf bite ? > > > > John Granger, to whom the credit for this brilliant find belongs, > > has written about it on his site at this link. > > > > > > Thoughts anyone? Or are we all as dumbstruck as me? > Jujube: > First, he's not the first person to float this theory--it's been out > there for a while now. Valky: Okay. > > Second, you have to evaluate his theory *in the context of > everything else he has in that "essay"*. Valky: Why? It has good consistent canon basis of its own, JG has drawn a valid literary parrallel, to this particular theory, and what you're telling me to do sounds like flat out prejudice, I don't do that. Jujube > There are a number of factual errors > on the part of this self-proclaimed Potter scholar Valky: I'm sorry, has he offended you personally by giving himself a pen name? Jujube: > (for example, he > can't get Umbridge's name correct) Valky: Meaning what exactly? Jujube: > and there are things he writes > which completely fly in the face of what we know is true. > > For example, he writes: > > > Ms. Rowling says nothing in her Fantastic Beasts books on Veela > > or Vampires and she has been positively vehement in recent > > interviews in her denials that Professor Snape is a vampire. This > > lack of information and truthful misdirection, of course, protects > > her story line, which she admits is her second priority in life > > after caring for her young family. > > This set off all of my warning bells. He purports to be a Potter > scholar, but he thinks JKR outright lies to us in interviews? To > assume she is lying when she has thoroughly discounted the entire > Snape/vampire storyline is to read things that are not there into > both the story and into her interviews. JKR plays fair. She may > misdirect, but she does not lie. Valky: I agree with you, but why is that such a problem? I am not the slightest bit inclined to pretend I have been extra perfect in my HP writing. Being wrong is pretty unavoidable in this game, in any scholarly exercise anywhere actually. That's why the red and blue marker where invented, and ticks and crosses, I think. Vampire!Snape is an utterly remote subject fom the seeming canon hints that Draco has been bitten. They should be discussed and regarded separately, don't you think? > Jujube: > > Most of the theories about what will happen in the book *which are > not tied to the alchemical story* exhibit, IMO, the same willful > ignoring of what the text actually says. Valky: Like you seem to have done with my post? Jujube: > Now on to the "Draco is a werewolf" theore. He writes: > > > One such turn-your-thinking-upside-down post came from Mary Ailes, > > whose idea was supported immediately by Laura Henderson (who had > > been working on parallel tracks simultaneously). Their theory is > > that the secret Moaning Myrtle wont tell Ron and Harry about Draco > > isnt his secret mission to kill Dumbledore or that he is a closet > > Death Eater. The secret she cannot tell them is that Draco is a > > werewolf. > > > > Now, before you run from Myrtles bathroom hooting, run this scene > > through your minds eye again. Were on the Astronomy Tower under > > the invisibility cloak and immobilized with Harry. Fenrir Greyback > > appears and the nasty man-wolf is picking the flesh out of his > > teeth. Dumbledore is disgusted that Greyback is eating human meat > > out of his season, > > I think Dumbledore's disgust is not because Greyback is hunting "out > of his season". I think it is because Greyback *hunts children*. Valky: I agree with you on that point about Greyback, and I admit I had forgotten JG credited his source. A mistake on my behalf, which I'll happily admit to. I guess that will destroy the credibility of everything I ever say now, IYO? But seriously, what does his misreading of Dumbledore have to do with sinking the theory? > Quote from Hogwartsprofessor.com: Jujube: > > tells him so, and adds, tellingly: > > > > And, yes, I am a little shocked that Draco here invited you, of > > all people, into the school where his friends live. > > > > I didnt, breathed Malfoy. He was not looking at Fenrir; he did not > > seem to want to even glance at him. I didnt know he was going to > > come - (Half-Blood Prince, chapter 27, Scholastic p. 594) > > > > Step back for a moment (watch the Tower edge). Draco Malfoy has > > been working all year to kill Dumbledore with a certain disregard > > for the lives of anyone and everyone who might get in the way of > > his Hail, Mary shots at the greatest wizard living. Dumbledore > > knows this and does not confront Draco only because he fears > > Dracos Occlumency is not good enough to shield himself from Lord > > Voldemorts penetration. > > > > Knowing that Malfoy is acting with bizarre disregard for the lives > > of his friends in the erratic attempts on Dumbledores life, why is > > the Headmaster shocked that Draco invited a werewolf into > > Hogwarts? I think the reasonable answer is the Draco Wolfboy > > theory, that Dumbledore knows Draco is a werewolf and tha Fenrir > > Greyback bit him on the arm on the Dark Lords orders to punish his > > parents. Dumbledore had to make the arrangements with the Potions > > master to make the Wolfsbane Potion Draco would need to get > > through the year (a thought that Draco or Horace perhaps does not > > guard at the Christmas Party, which explains the look of fear on > > Severus the Legilimens face there). > Jujube: > First, and quite importantly, Draco's disregard for his fellow > students most definitely does NOT extend to his Slytherin/Death > Eater pals. They are never, ever in danger from what he does. He > would not put his friends in to danger. Valky: I disagree. Draco is fairly disregarding of everyone, including his friends. I don't think Draco is cpable of never ever putting his friends in danger, he makes rather a lot of demands of his friends, I'm sure he wouldn't ever knowingly plot against them, but he gets them hexed all the time by making them help him throw his weight around. I don't think you have a whole lot of canon to base that on, since there really hasn't been a great deal of actual danger besetting Draco and crew pre HBP. OTOH I tend to disagree with John on this too, the argument for Draco having disregard in general is interesting and fairly canonical, IMO. But for me, it leads to speculation that Dumbledore realised a Draco and Werewolf connection in that moment. The wolfsbane potion story is really unecessary to me, though its up to each person to read speculation for themselves and decide what they believe. As I have done. > Jujube: > Second, the "reasonable answer" is that Draco knows the Death Eaters > who are with him there will only kill Dumbledore, the members of the > Order of the Phoenix, and those students who have aligned themselves > with the Order and who engage voluntarily in that battle. The > children of the Death Eaters--that is, Malfoy's friends--are safe. > Horrible though the DEs may be, they will not harm the children of > their group. > > Greyback, on the other hand, is under no such constraints. He kills > willfully and for pleasure, and has a special fondness for children. > He is the most truly despicable character in the books, and a true > stroke of genius as written by JKR. He will not care if he kills and > eats Gryffindors, Ravenclaws, Huflepuffs, or Slytherins, including > the children of Death Eaters. Draco knows this and that is why he is > afraid--he is afraid that this truly evil creature, not bound at all > by humanity, will kill his own friends. THAT is why he is so upset > to see Draco there. He could care less about killing anyone outside > of Slytherin. But now, with Greyback on campus with his friends, > and with flesh in his teeth, Draco finally begins to understand the > full scope of the evil he has signed on with. The glamour of evil, > like the glamor of the veela, is now showing its horrible ugly > underside. > More importantly, if Draco *were* a werewolf, why would he be afraid > of Greyback? He's already a werewolf. Greyback can't do anything > else to him (save kill him, and that's probably the least of Draco's > worries at this time). Valky: Draco isn't necessarily afraid of Greyback in this scene, he certainly doesn't run screaming from the building. Draco's behaviour when he sees Greyback can be evident to a range of emotions from discomfort, to fear, to plain loathing of the creature. Draco acts very guarded about how he feels about Greyback. Generally guarded emotions IMO are open ground for speculation until the canon is laid. This is, after all, how we get away with discussing Severus Snape to the ends of each book and back again all the time. I will say that your speculation is very good, and reasonable as you say. But it is no less speculation than any other theory really, is it? > Quote from Hogwartsprofessor.com: > > The evidence put forth by Mary Ailes and Laura Henderson is > > compelling. You have multiple descriptions of Draco in Lupinesque > > condition, pale, haggard, sunken eyes (apparently this Wolfsbane > > Potion must be a little like chemotherapy). He is constantly > > disappearing and in ill health. There is also the encounter in > > Diagon Alley in the robes shop and the overheard conversation > > Borgin and Burkes. > Jujube: > But the course Voldemort has set for Draco requires a great deal of > planning, patience, detail-orientation, and the most efficient use > of time possible. How would he allow for the person to carry out > this plan to be turned into a werewolf which would at the very least > slow down the plans to the point where they could not be implemented > before the school year ends (because of the time lost every month to > the antidote), or at worst, completely upended because potion was > not taken and Draco transforms into a werewolf and tips his hand? It > makes no sense. Valky: Voldemort wouldn't care, for a start. The more severe the punishment the better. Secondly Draco is a Slytherin boy, he is goal oriented, so time management is a no brainer. And finally, Draco tries to take shortcuts to get the job done, it did go slowly and it did seem to have any number of setbacks including times when Draco seemed to dissappear from school altogether. One extra thing, there is always the question of why Harry could never see what Draco Malfoy was *doing* in the ROR. He asked the ROR in every possible way to show him Draco, and the ROR never yeilded to this. Why? As far as *we* know Draco was in there up to something, the ROR should have supplied, unless there was a reason for it to say *Draco* is not in here. If Draco Malfoy was no longer just Draco Malfoy, then this would be true. Quote from Hogwartsprofessor.com: > > Harry, of course, assumes the arm wound is the fresh tattoo of a > > Death Eater. Hermione is very skeptical throughout the book. When > > in doubt, whom do you trust? Hermione or Harry? > > > > I, of course, trust the Granger over a Potter every time. > > Jujube: > In books 1-5, yes. In book 6--no. This is the book where Harry takes > over. After Sirius's death and the revelation of the prophecy at the > end of book 5, this is a different Harry. This is a Harry who no > longer sees through a glass darkly. This book begins, for the first > time, with 2 chapters not from Harry's POV. That is a sign that that > things are being upended in the narrative. We hear Draco boasting on > the train, and we know from the scene at Spinner's End that Harry's > conclusions *are* true. Valky: That's speculation, Harry could still be as wrong as ever he was. He's always been honest. > Quote from Hogwartsprofessor.com: > > Its a werewolf bite - and it scares Mr. Borgin, especially when > > Draco says Greyback is a family friend. Hell be dropping in to see > > you from time to time to make sure youre giving the problem your > > full attention (Half-Blood Prince, chapter 6, p.125). > > > > Mr. Borgin probably knows, as Lupin tells us, that Greyback is, > > perhaps, the most savage werewolf alive today who regards it as > > his mission in life to bite and contaminate as many people as > > possible and that at the full moon, he positions himself close to > > victims, ensuring that he is near enough to strike. He plans it > > all. And this is the man Voldemort is using to marshal the > > werewolves (Half-Blood Prince, chapter 16, Scholastic, > > pp. 334-335). Looking at Dracos bite probably has at least the > > effect of seeing the Dark Mark tattoo Harry imagines is on Dracos > > arm. > Jujube: > Again, what purpose does this serve? It doesn't make any narrative > sense to have someone threatened with a bite, when the entire first > part of the book is devoted to telling us that both the wizarding > and Muggle worlds now know that Voldemort is back. The whole point > of the scene-setting in the first few chapters is to show the huge > difference between the ostrich-like behavior of the Ministry in book > 5 and their scramble to action in book 6. The Dark Mark is the > scariest thing you can see in a world beset by terror. It's much > scarier than a werewolf bite. As gruesome and terrible as Greyback > is, he is nothing compared to the Death Eaters. He is nothing > compared to Voldemort. Greyback's retaliation is a threat, to be > sure, but the scariest thing you can be threatened with is > Voldemort's wrath. Borgin had to have remembered what was like > during the first wizarding war. That is what spurs his fear--the > threat of that coming home to roost on him and his family. Valky: You know this with authority? The authors absolute intentions? I'm sorry I just can't buy that. What you say above seems to me like a perfect and preferred place for JKR to hide a brilliant plot misdirection. > Quote from Hogwartsprofessor.com: > > But what is the meaning of Dracos being made a werewolf? What does > > it contribute to the story? It is, after all, not even mentioned > > in the Half-Blood Prince story-line. Draco Wolf-boy simultaneously > > reveals the consequences of evil and makes the evil-doer more an > > object of pity than hatred or judgment. > > > > The Malfoys are horrible people, to cut to the quick, who are Pure > > -Blood Nazis and Death Eaters of the worst kind. They despise both > > Muggles and the Mudblood wizards born from this breeding stock, > > they treat their house-elves cruelly, and they conspire for the > > return and triumph of the Dark Lord in the hope that they will > > share in his power. Unfortunately, for them, Lucius failed the > > Dark Lord, who visited the failings of the father on the son to > > torture the whole family. Draco is sent onto a suicide mission and > > made into a werewolf besides to show to the Death Eaters in the > > inner circle how severe the consequences of failure really are. > > How can you create an entire backstory which is completely invisible > in the text, and then insist it's really there? IMO it's one thing > to so as a member of the online fandom, but to do so while also one > is also representing his/herself as a scholar is very puzzling to > me. A close textual analysis of the actual facts at hand supports no > such contention. Valky: This is invisible in the text? I disagree. Please point out what is not canon, I can't find it. > Jujube: > I completely disagree with this scenario. The Malfoys are evil. > Period. There's no additional torture of having their son made into > a werewolf. It serves IMO no use in the plot. Draco is on a suicide > mission. What is the point of also making him a werewolf? Narcissa > knows her son is going to die. *That* is her punishment. Valky: I can't seem to get my head around your sense of authoritarial superiority. Why are you right? I apologise for being so blunt with you, but I only see here a blatant claim that there will be no plot twists and you have it on the utmost authority. I can't buy it. Yes Draco is on a suicide mission, yes he might die, but no, why should Voldemort draw a line that you dictate? He's a coldblooded murderer and Lucius screwed up his very important plot at the crucial juncture because he was helpless against teenagers. Is Voldemort self effacing enough to look upon Lucius failure with the amount of leniency that you are saying? I really doubt it. For me, it's in character for LV that Draco is "lucky" to be alive after that. Voldie is not a reasonable person. The Montgomery sisters might be a place for you to start looking at that. Lucius lost him his diary Horcrux and it went unpunished, then he lost him his prophecy, you only name one punishment for two sins. The equation is *not* balanced. Jujube: > That is the warning to the other Death Eaters--like the Pharaoh > killed the first born sons to try to kill Moses, Voldemort will kill > the children of Death Eaters who let him down. Valky: But he didn't kill him. He sent him to kill Dumbledore. Voldemort *took a chance* that Dumbledore would kill Draco. But Dumbledore isn't exactly a guaranteed lethal weapon. He is merciful and kind to children. Voldemort himsefl knew that there was a greater chance that Draco would survive if he ever got to Dumbledore. Dumbeldore won't kill children he will try to save them and care for them, so Voldemort would be playing on DD's weakness by sending Draco, not expecting Draco to die. If Lucius was to be truly punished, then I don't think Voldemort would count on Dumbledore to dish it out for him. > Jujube: > There's no need to add to that > particular pain, or to the horror of that threat--killing children, > or sending them to their eventual deaths, is more than enough. JKR > writes with a lighter touch than many people in the Potterverse will > give her credit for. Valky: Your opinion, of course. > Jujube: > Furthermore, our pity for Draco, when Dumbledore tries to save his > soul, in no way needs the added "knowledge" that Draco is a > werewolf. Valky: I agree with that. DD would not need Draco to be afflicted by a werewolf bite to show him mercy. DD just does that. Jujube: > It's a melodramatic, added plot point which is completely > out of synch with JKR's style and plotting. Valky: I disagree completely, but you knew that didn't you. This is not out of synch, Draco being revealed as a werewolf later down the track could easily serve the plot. But we are just offering opinion here. > Jujube: > Plus, there already is one person bitten by Greyback: Bill Weasley. Valky: True, but there are other werewolves. I only said werewolf bite, I am open to it not having been Greyback. jujube: > That is the bite that is 1. supported by text and 2. has the > greatest impact. The pureblood Weasley family is now tainted. And > their response is love. As is Fleur's, marking her as one of the > Weasleys too. Valky: All the more reason for us to have something in the text to compare it to. > > jujube > -- > Madam Pince's Sitting Room: a strictly canon-based Harry Potter > discussion group opening for discussion in mid-September > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Madam_Pince/ Valky Wondering what was the agenda of jujubes reply, *really*. From scarah at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 02:30:25 2005 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:30:25 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Possibly another slant? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <32025905090119305d1ec05f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139327 > budbondietti: > > > > I also have a problem believing that the DL would assign > > such a gigantic assignment (doing in DD) to an unproven teen. Sarah: How then would you explain the necklace and the wine? Draco confessed to these things, giving details on how he arranged them. Sarah [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jmrazo at hotmail.com Fri Sep 2 02:31:01 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 02:31:01 -0000 Subject: Draco's culpability (Was: My doubts about Snape being Evil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139328 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > I completely disagree. For one thing, we don't know if Draco > actually *is* a Death Eater. But for another, we know that Draco > was selected for a suicide mission he was expected to fail. Draco > was being used to punish his father's failures. Draco did *not* > volunteer for this. Bellatrix makes that very clear, IMO. > > "Draco should be proud," said Bellatrix indifferently. "The Dark > Lord is granting him a great honor. And I will say this for Draco: > He isn't shrinking away from his duty, he seems glad of a chance to > prove himself, excited at the prospect --" (HBP Scholastic p.33) > > The words used here ("granted" "duty" "chance") speak to an > assignment, IMO. And the fact that it was most likely his sweet auntie Bella who taught him occulomency means she knows his mind better than anyone else. If she describes him as eager and excited I am going to take her at her word. He ain't good enough to hid what he's really feeling from her. Ultimately I think JKR is going to redeem Draco even though I think she probably shouldn't. He doesn't deserve it and I think there needs to be some contempory of Harry who well and irrevocably falls to the dark. I want Draco to be this student. Though I would settle for Ginny... Man, I hate that girl :) phoenixgod2000 From ken.fruit at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 02:32:43 2005 From: ken.fruit at gmail.com (Ken Fruit) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 21:32:43 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Weasley Spy? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <71beed6b050901193214980a06@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139329 > Betsy Hp: And it occurred to me that perhaps one of the Weasleys is a spy for Voldemort. Guru: The spy is Percy Weasley, but he's the Orders spy inside the Fudge's office for DD. By the way, at the end of Book 7, he's going to be reporting to his father, because Arthur is going to end up as MoM. How do I know? Ron said it himself in OOP -- " We've got about as much chance of winning the Quidditch Cup this year as Dad's got of becomming Minister of Magic". And since they did win the Quidditch Cup, and Ron's always wrong, except when he's joking, ... -- Ken Fruit ken.fruit at gmail.com From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 02:48:16 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 02:48:16 -0000 Subject: Draco's culpability (Was: My doubts about Snape being Evil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139330 > > > Betsy Hp: > > For one thing, we don't know if Draco > > actually *is* a Death Eater. > > > a_svirn: > > Yes, we know this. We might not know for sure whether or not he has > the Mark yet, but what does that matter? For all intends and > purposes he *is* a DE. Alla: Moreover JKR in the interview specifically stated that Draco IS a Death Eater. "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? So he suppresses virtually all of the good side of himself. But then he's playing with the big boys, as the phrase has it, and suddenly, having talked the talk he's asked to walk it for the first time and it is absolutely terrifying." - July 16 Interview. Alla. From jjjjjulie at aol.com Fri Sep 2 02:56:41 2005 From: jjjjjulie at aol.com (jjjjjuliep) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 02:56:41 -0000 Subject: Not a Dark Mark ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139331 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > > > > jujube > > -- > > Madam Pince's Sitting Room: a strictly canon-based Harry Potter > > discussion group opening for discussion in mid-September > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Madam_Pince/ > > Valky > Wondering what was the agenda of jujubes reply, *really*. The "agenda" of my reply was, as it has been for the years I have been on this list, to express my opinion on a Harry Potter-related topic. It may be an unpopular opinion, but that's IMO not really a good excuse to besmirch my online character. jujube Madam Pince's Sitting Room: a strictly canon-based Harry Potter discussion group opening for discussion in mid-September http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Madam_Pince/ From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Sep 2 02:34:13 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 02:34:13 -0000 Subject: Harry's character development In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139332 Steve wrote: < HUGE SNIP> > > Harry has a terrible and extremely difficult task ahead of him, and I > still see him as woefully inadequately prepared to face it. > I will concede that Harry has immense talent and some skill at > fighting. He also has fierce determination and great courage and > daring; all excellent characteristics for an effective fighter, but I > still say he is hopelessly ill-prepared to face Voldemort. > Harry is not currently even remotely able to take on the task that he > appears to have to take on. > > Just passing it along. > Oh my goodness! I tend to agree that, were Harry a real person, he would be in serious trouble. However, I have a feeling that, whatever preparation he has, it will prove adequate to the task. That's the privilege of being the fictional hero of a fantasy series. I tend to think that JKR, and hence Dumbledore, has been very conscious and deliberate in not providing Harry with systematic and logical preparation for the task at hand. JKR seems out to emphasize that it will be the "power that Voldemort knows not" that will be the Dark Lord's downfall. Giving Harry a systematic preparation for out and out battle would be beside the point. This is, of course, well in keeping with the standards of certain kinds of fantasy, particularly fantasy that's influenced by Christian beliefs. Frodo had no skills or powers with which to oppose Sauron, the children who stumbled through the wardrobe had no abilities with which to directly battle the White Witch. It is the convention of such things that victory arises from weakness and humility, not from power. Lupinlore From djklaugh at comcast.net Fri Sep 2 03:42:45 2005 From: djklaugh at comcast.net (Deb) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 03:42:45 -0000 Subject: Possibly another slant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139333 "budbondietti" wrote: > Having read a lot of the comments, I'd like to add my two cents worth. > I do believe that Snape AK'ed DD but it was not for the completion of > Draco's task or the UV. I believe that Snape fulfilled his committment > to Narcissa when he healed Draco after the sectumsempra curse was > performed by Harry. > > I believe that Draco's assignment from the DL was to create a means to > get his DE's into Hogwarts for a confrontation with DD to stop his > efforts to find the Horcruxes which he found out how DD was > progressing by using Harry's vision. I find it hard to believe that > the DL would not utilize any means of succeeding after all of the past > failures. I also have a problem believing that the DL would assign > such a gigantic assignment (doing in DD) to an unproven teen. > Completion of the path from B&B to Hogwarts would be a start to prove > Draco's worth and avenge his fathers incarceration. > > These are my thoughts. > > Bud I think that LV gave Draco 2 tasks... to get the DEs inside Hogwarts and to kill Dumbledore. And as has been pointed out else where, LV expected Draco to fail at one or both tasks. When Snape made the UV with Narcissa, I think he knew there was more than one task for Draco though he did not know what specifically they were. I would imagine that LV and the DEs have been discussing ever since LV returned how to get into Hogwarts and how to do away with Dumbledore.... they probably even discussed these things before LV became Vapomort! That may be part of the reason his hand twitched during the 3rd part of the UV ... anxiety and hope that Narcissa would not specify what exactly the task was she wanted Snape to finish if Draco failed. (I also wonder if Narcissa knew what the precise task(s) were... she might have only knew that Draco had a "deed" to do for LV and may not have known what exactly it was). That way if Snape had been able to help Draco complete the first task, bringing in the DEs to Hogwarts, then he would have fulfilled the terms of the UV and would not have had to kill Dumbledore. However, Draco foiled Snape's attempts to help him and even refused to tell him what he was trying to do. Draco thought Snape "wants to steal my glory" (paraphrase here) and was determined to accomplish the task on his own (even cried to Moaning Myrtle when he was not having any success at repairing the Vanishing Cabinet) ... to win glory for himself, to redeem his father, to elevate himself in the DE hierarchy, to gain positive regard from LV (I suspect that Draco was very aware that if he failed it would most probably mean his own death and perhaps the deaths of his father and mother)..... for one, another, or all of these reasons. So when Snape realized that Draco had indeed succeeded in the first task... and all on his own... Snape had little choice (and I am sure that he had discussed this thoroughly with Dumbledore when the UV was first made).... he had to be the one to "carry out the deed that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform"... that is the 2nd "deed"... kill Dumbledore. Deb (djklaugh) From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Sep 2 03:44:46 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 03:44:46 -0000 Subject: Not a Dark Mark ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139334 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jjjjjuliep" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" > wrote: > > > > > > jujube > > > -- > > > Madam Pince's Sitting Room: a strictly canon-based Harry Potter > > > discussion group opening for discussion in mid-September > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Madam_Pince/ > > > > Valky > > Wondering what was the agenda of jujubes reply, *really*. > > The "agenda" of my reply was, as it has been for the years I have > been on this list, to express my opinion on a Harry Potter-related > topic. It may be an unpopular opinion, but that's IMO not really a > good excuse to besmirch my online character. > > jujube > Madam Pince's Sitting Room: a strictly canon-based Harry Potter > discussion group opening for discussion in mid-September > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Madam_Pince/ Valky: I don't remember saying that your opinion was unpopular. I agreed with a lot of your opinion, please check upthread again. At this point I will make clear tht I am using my last post of the day to, here, with all sincere and honest intention, bow from this discussion. I apologise to the list elves genuinely, if it appears I have incited pandemonium on the list. Valky From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 2 04:14:58 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 04:14:58 -0000 Subject: Shingleton and his year group Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139335 Gaspard Shingleton is the Wizard of the month at JKR's website. Here's the bit about him, which is repeated at the Lexicon: Gaspard Shingleton -- 1959 ? present. Celebrated inventor of the Self-Stirring Cauldron. There's a picture of him with his cauldron. He's a white-haired wizard. What struck me at once was how old he looked to be so young and heck, now that I think about it, I assume I have his picture out of date is the website in 2005 or 1990something? Oddly enough I was at a website of apparently young writers who thought he looked pretty good to be so old. Shingleton is on the Chocolate Frog cards, so anyone who cared to pay attention would already know about him. What's pretty amazing is that he would most likely have been in the same year as the Marauders. I'm basing this on Snape and Lupin listed as born in 1959/60 and Black, Potter and Evans listed as 1960 according to the Lexicon. He's an inventor. Well, with James and Sirius being the brightest of their year, Lily being such a prodigy at potions and Severus being so well versed in Dark Arts and inventing his own spells .that was one heck of a class! (So, OK, he could have been a year ahead of them.) Not only that, he's still alive. So, where is he? What house was he in? Dumbledore's man or pro-Dark Lord. Does anyone know his whereabouts or is he missing these days too? Does anyone think he could be of any interest? Potioncat, the person who thought Agnes, Theo and little Mark Evans would be of interest as well. From marilynpeake at cs.com Fri Sep 2 05:30:38 2005 From: marilynpeake at cs.com (Marilyn Peake) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 05:30:38 -0000 Subject: will Harry return to Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: <004d01c5af24$acc4a8a0$3e781652@thorburn> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139336 "Derek Thorburn" wrote: >> I think, whilst we're discussing Harry's future education, we need to consider whether or not Harry's really going to return to school. Marilyn Peake responds: This aspect of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince definitely paves the way for very different possible stories in Book # 7. If Harry settles down and resumes his life as a student, some of his life will return to normal in Book # 7. However, if he feels that he has now been forced to grow up enough to leave Hogwarts early and fight evil in the world at large, Book # 7 will take a sharp departure from the earlier books. I'm definitely looking forward to seeing which path Harry will choose! Best Wishes, Marilyn ~~ "The Golden Goblet" Newsletter, now available at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marilynpeake From lady.indigo at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 03:21:14 2005 From: lady.indigo at gmail.com (lady.indigo at gmail.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:21:14 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Apologies and responsibility In-Reply-To: References: <63378ee705083113595efeb146@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <63378ee705090120216320f2ed@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139337 On 9/1/05, msbeadsley wrote: > > And Harry is supposed to tell the difference between "necessary > rulebreaking" and "rulebreaking without much remorse or learning from > his mistakes" how, exactly? He is supposed to know "necessary" and "to > fight against unfair things" (like Umbridge, whom he opposes at the > risk of being eventually imprisoned) from where he should refrain or > have remorse because--um, why, exactly? Let's make this very simple. Harry breaks rules because of, say, the Sorcerer's Stone, as the more he noses into the situation and learns about the subject the more he gets the feeling something very dangerous might be going on. He wants to do something about it, because as far as he's concerned he knows things about what's going on that nobody else does. He breaks the rules because of, using your example, Umbridge - because Umbridge is taking so much abusive power over the school that the rest of the teachers encourage poltergeists and Fred and George throwing people into closets. Any idiot from age 10 to 100 can see she's bigoted, sadistic, and any other number of things; she needs to be stopped. Harry breaks the rules to get a good grade in Potions, or in other classes where Hermione does his homework for him (something I never liked either), looks into Snape's Pensieve in order to fight dirty (only because Snape was fighting dirty, yes, but chances are he wouldn't have that luxury when he came face to face with Voldemort; he should have found some 'proper' way to learn the lesson)...and this benefits no one but him in a situation that's completely unthreatening if he fails. How does he not know the difference? I should think it was obvious. And if he honestly *doesn't* understand the difference by this age, even with Hermione looking over his shoulder and telling him all the time, I'm more than just worried about him. Oh, and Lockhart didn't *need* anything except to be taken to the authorities. The only reason I'm not completely freaked out that they basically used him as a meatshield (I'm remembering mainly by the movie here, but still) is because there was probably no time to do anything else under the circumstances. - Lady Indigo [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From marilynpeake at cs.com Fri Sep 2 05:38:56 2005 From: marilynpeake at cs.com (Marilyn Peake) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 05:38:56 -0000 Subject: The Prophecy and Harry's Readiness to face Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139338 "Kris" wrote: > Many have suggested the Harry is not ready to face Voldemort because > he has yet to master the skills needed for the task ahead. I would > suggest that after careful reading of "The Prophecy" that the > abilities to "vanquish" the Dark Lord has nothing to do with > *learned* skills but rather Harry was born with the abilities and > everything was set in motion once Voldemort made the choice of which > child was his greatest threat. > > For Harry to be "ready" to take on Voldemort for the final > battle, he only needs to come to realization that he already has the > abilites much like the end of POA. Marilyn Peake responds: Perhaps Harry's readiness to take on Voldemort will be the result of Harry maturing emotionally, to the point where he truly knows himself and trusts his abilities. Up until now, Harry's defined himself as a student and a child. Dumbledore's death may be the turning point after which Harry feels like an adult with adult responsibilities. Best Wishes, Marilyn ~~ "The Golden Goblet" Newsletter, now available at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marilynpeake From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Sep 2 03:43:05 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 03:43:05 -0000 Subject: HP Conventional Wisdom Watch, HBP Edition Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139339 Okay, it is time for the fabulous, the expected, the awaited, first post-HBP HP Conventional Wisdom Watch! As always this is a compendium of my observations from several boards, not just HPfGU. Also, as I can't do nifty arrows a la NEWSWEEK, I'll use "Rising," "Falling," and "Mixed." HARRY POTTER - Rising. What can I say, he's the Hero and it's almost time for his Big Moment. Things now are moving swiftly forward toward the triumph, however that will be managed. The only question is whether Harry will live to join the celebration. ALBUS DUMBLEDORE - Falling. I know some don't think he's dead, but frankly, I think he's as non-living as the proverbial door nail. SEVERUS SNAPE - Falling. I know, I know, it obviously should be Mixed. But the fact is that Severus almost certainly sealed his fate on the Astronomy Tower. As Gilbert and Sullivan would say "His Doom is Nigh, His Bell has rung." Whether good, evil, or somewhere in between, even Guido and his leg breakers in the back alley won't give odds on Severus still being on stage when the curtain comes down. DRACO MALFOY - Rising. Who knew the kid had it in him? He actually managed 2 and 1/2 dimensions in HBP. Whatever he manages in the last book, he's already overcome expectations. RON WEASLEY - Falling. Great expectations for his blossoming met mostly disappointment in HBP. Instead of the great strategist and possible Head Boy many had predicted, he receded once again well into Harry's lengthening shadow, settling comfortably back into the role of loyal, lovable, funny but not terribly competent sidekick. HERMIONE GRANGER - Falling. SPEW was forgotten and her intellectual skills mostly seemed to find vent in unattractive, if amusing, jealousy. Loyal and loving as always, and not the shrill nag of OOTP, but also manifesting a widening streak of hypocrisy as she complained about Harry's potions book while confounding Ron's rivals. GINNY WEASLEY - Rising. Let's see a show of hands of those who think that she and Harry are through. I thought so. Little Ginny seems sure to play a major role in the final book, although what particular role is yet to be determined. Whatever one thinks about the JKR's skill in developing her character, she seems to be fearlessly stationed at Harry's "side" against all comers, including even the formidable Hermione Granger. NEVILLE LONGBOTTOM - Falling. The Boy Who Might Have Been continued to be just that, in almost every particular. LUNA LOVEGOOD - Mixed. She was not present as much as many had hoped and predicted, but her appearances made up in quality what was absent in quantity. REMUS LUPIN - Falling. Unfortunately, all of Remus' bad traits have been on display the last two books as he cruised through two years as a poster boy for passivity and emotional repression then lapsed into near-hysteria. One hopes the last book will give him a chance to display his strengths once again. NYMPHADORA TONKS - Falling. From a confident, competent, if somewhat clumsy Auror, she lapsed into a mousy-haired, love-lorn romance-novel cliche incapable even of dealing effectively with standard Snape nastiness. Like Remus, let us hope her strengths return in the last book. PERCY WEASLEY - Falling. Poor Percy, he just can't seem to do anything right. Let's hope mashed tubers are the bottom floor of his humiliations. LUCIUS MALFOY - Falling. Most had confidently expected him to be out of Azkaban early in the sixth book. I hope he has a harmonica to pass the time. NARCISSA MALFOY - Rising. So, Cissa has a spine, does she? And those baby blues seem to have quite an effect on a certain potions teacher. BELLATRIX LESTRANGE - Falling. Poor Bella. She would do better if she could just keep her mouth shut. First it's baby talk at the Ministry, then she turns into a verbal punching bag for Snape. Sigh. VOLDEMORT - Falling. Voldy, Voldy, Voldy. How incompetent are you, let me count the ways. You have evidence that Harry Potter's mind is open to you, and he isn't learning Occlumency. So you just say, "That love hurts!" and forget the whole thing. You have a tool at hand in Draco Malfoy, and so rather than have him try and kill Potter, which might have worked well, you waste his action by hurling him against Dumbledore and thus lose your spy inside Hogwarts. Well, what can you expect from the degenerate and genetically evil progeny of a poisoned and inbred bloodline? Lupinlore From lady.indigo at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 03:59:51 2005 From: lady.indigo at gmail.com (lady.indigo at gmail.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:59:51 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco and Sirius (was Re: Apologies and responsibility) In-Reply-To: References: <63378ee7050831175351fb1c84@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <63378ee70509012059797ea3b1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139340 On 9/1/05, rlai1977 wrote: >Draco, the son of a DE, has been >following daddy's footsteps for the past 17 years, is starting to >re-examine his stance and might, just *might* choose to walk a >different path. I have to disagree to a small extent here. Draco has a conscience left, but he doesn't fail to murder Dumbledore based on some moral principle bubbling up and saying 'it's just not right!' It seems like any switch of allegiance he might have would be more out of fear. A mixture of both at the very least >Firstly, being a half-blood necessary means not much prejudices to >begin with? Then what is Voldemort, a character from another series ^^? No, but a character from another background and history, plus a decided sociopath who needs to think of himself as 'the specialist little wizard of them all'. Admittedly I'm only going by my interpretation of Snape here, but nothing I've seen outside the Lily incident has indicated to me he'd go by Voldemort's rules. (Though his trouble with his dad at home might have created negative thoughts about Muggles, true.) >Draco, like Snape, was humiliated, and the first thing they thought >to insult the girl with was a racist slur. Again, completely different situation IMO. We'd seen Draco show pureblood sentiment repeatedly, before and after this and in a number of different contexts. Snape used it *once*, in my opinion simply as the insult that'd show him to be a big bad Slytherin and hurt the most, and Lily seemed surprised by it - as if by age 15 it had never happened before. Snape has targeted students, including and sometimes especially Hermione, for everything else and not gotten in trouble with Dumbledore... Wouldn't he have shown further bias for Slytherin at some point by using someone's heritage as a weapon? >The reason Snape joined the DEs was never revealed, nor implied, what >you are saying here is a *theory*. Er, yes. Which is why I said it was my opinion. >He could very well have joined >because he was at the time misguided to believe in pure blood >supremacy, nothing in canon goes against that. True. I just get the feeling that's not the case. Snape's a lot of things, worse things IMO, but I just don't see this as being one of them. >But the fact that he >had willingly joined a group that was all about blood prejudice, kind >of suggests to me he did have quite a bit of prejudice himself. The Death Eaters offered power, glory, a place in the new world order, and all that good stuff. Any number of wizards could have fought on Voldemort's side for those reasons instead. Pinning Snape as a definite racist makes as little sense to me as the opposite does to you, so I guess we can't really know for sure. (Unless the Snape/Lily theory is proved right, of course. ^_^) - Lady Indigo [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 2 10:57:31 2005 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 06:57:31 -0400 Subject: Harry's flaws and moral errors? Message-ID: <005d01c5afad$1e934c60$76c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 139341 Sandy aka msbeadsley >>This is closer to canon than what Rita Skeeter wrote about Harry was to Harry in reality, but it still isn't canon. CathyD: It could have been something as little as being sneaked up on. "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 Sectumsepra spell, captioned "For Enemies", that he had marked a few weeks previously. He had still not found out what it did, mainly because he did not want to test it around Hermione, but he was *considering trying it out on McLaggen* next time he came up behind him unawares." Lucky for McLaggen that he didn't sneak up on Harry before Harry found out how the spell really worked. >>I can't fathom how someone, even at the age of 16, even in a world with advanced healing, could ever see something labelled 'for enemies' and have their first urge be to use it and see what it does.> Sandy aka msbeadsley >>See my previous paragraph, and furthermore, "have their *first urge* (emphasis mine) be to use it and see what it does" is, IMO, edging back up to Rita Skeeter's level of realistic reportage again CathyD: Canon shows clearly what Harry first thought of the spell: "Harry ignored her. He had just found an incantation (Sectumsempra) scrawled in a margin above the intriguing words 'For Enemies', and *was itching to try it out,* but thought it best not to in front of Hermione. Instead, he serreptitiously folded down the corner of the page." Itching to try it out right then and there. Lucky for someone in Gryffindor tower that Hermione was there isn't it? I think what saved Draco, was not just that Mrytle's screams brought Snape running, but that Snape was following Draco, probably as closely as Harry was. If Snape had been in his Dungeon office when this happened he wouldn't have been so quick on the spot. I'm quite certain he was watching Draco, and saw him enter the bathroom, followed some time later by Harry. (Snape could hardly appear to lurk outside a *boy's* bathroom...what would the readers say then? Can Snape make himself invisible without an invisibility cloak?) When Snape heard Myrtle's screams, who did he think had been attacked and rushed to aid? Not Draco, surely, Snape knew what Draco was capable of by this time, but he had no idea that Harry knew any such Dark Magic. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Sep 2 06:39:20 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 06:39:20 -0000 Subject: Apologies and responsibility In-Reply-To: <63378ee705090120216320f2ed@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139342 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > > Let's make this very simple. He > breaks the rules because of, using your example, Umbridge - because Umbridge > is taking so much abusive power over the school that the rest of the > teachers encourage poltergeists and Fred and George throwing people into > closets. Any idiot from age 10 to 100 can see she's bigoted, sadistic, and > any other number of things; she needs to be stopped. And yet, Umbridge is the legal representative of the Ministry, endowed with all the legitimate power of Wizarding Society. Furthermore she is the legitimate and legal Headmistress of Hogwarts. Her legitimacy and claim to obedience puts makes that of Snape, only a potions teacher, seem paltry indeed. Why now, should Harry be respectful of Snape or Sluggy, people whom he does not trust and who have never given good reason to be trusted or respected, when he is positively encouraged and rewarded for not being obedient and respectful to Umbridge? Because Dumbledore says so? Yeah, right. I wouldn't buy that one, either. > > > How does he not know the difference? I should think it was obvious. And if > he honestly *doesn't* understand the difference by this age, even with > Hermione looking over his shoulder and telling him all the time, I'm more > than just worried about him. Hermione forfeits much influence she might wield by proving herself a shrill, unhelpful nag whose attitude sometimes (particularly in OOTP) approaches the reprehensible. Nor does anyone else have much right to pat themselves on the back in this regard. The Dursleys gave Harry absolutely no reason to feel that obeying rules and being honest with authority would garner him anything but unjust punishment. As for the Wizarding World, he has plentiful evidence that his attitude and practices - most of which are vastly magnified and blown totally out of proportion in fan discussions - are not only condoned but expected, anticipated, and rewarded. His attitude toward Snape not only does not garner him severe punishment, but is tacitly supported and approved by Dumbledore who calls Occlumency a fiasco, who informs Harry Snape only helped him in PS/SS because he owed it to his dead father, who undoubtedly blocks any attempt by Snape to garner greater punishment for Sectumsempra, and who publically goads Snape into an impotent fury when Harry snatches Sirius out from under his nose. As far as Sluggy goes, any worry he might have on that score is settled once again by Dumbledore who frankly orders him to use every dirty trick in the book to secure what is needed from the potions teacher. Never once is he instructed by Dumbledore to "buckle down because his lessons will be important for fighting Voldemort." Far from it, Dumbledore seems not to think that any sort of systemic or formal preparation for facing Voldemort is particularly important, and seems to be totally satisfied with Harry's grades and his methods for obtaining them. Nor does McGonagall, his head of house, usually express a great deal of concern over these matters -- although she has given Harry no particular reason to listen to her or feel that he should pay a great deal of attention to what she has to say, especially since her handling of him in OOTP was spectacular in its stupidity. Lupin, meanwhile, is passive and emotionally distant, while Sirius out and out calls Harry a prude and killjoy. Given those types of attitudes and maladroit handling, at Harry's age I would have readily realized I had practical carte blanche for rule breaking and enjoyed it to the fullest. I have to say, considering the situation he has been a veritable model of rectitude, honesty, and restraint. > > Oh, and Lockhart didn't *need* anything except to be taken to the > authorities. The only reason I'm not completely freaked out that they > basically used him as a meatshield (I'm remembering mainly by the movie > here, but still) is because there was probably no time to do anything else > under the circumstances. The very authorities that Harry had just seen throw Hagrid into Azkaban for no other reason than that they feared public pressure and had to have someone to blame? The very authorities that yielded to blatant bribery from Lucius Malfoy? Yeah, right. Lupinlore From klodiana_xha at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 03:30:33 2005 From: klodiana_xha at yahoo.com (klodiana_xha) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 03:30:33 -0000 Subject: The way portraits talk. WAS: Re: Dumbledore's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139343 Mibletonia: > > I do not think the portraits convey information that the depicted > person knew in his or her time. They only react much in the same way > as they did when alive, repeat phrases etc. > > > BUT: I'll be happy to find that I am wrong on both items! Klodi now: I do not remember the exact interview but JKR said that the portraits just repeat some catch phrases and are not the real thing. Check the madamscoop.org website for it Klodiana From mimbeltonia at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 11:37:08 2005 From: mimbeltonia at yahoo.com (mimbeltonia) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 11:37:08 -0000 Subject: The way portraits talk. WAS: Re: Dumbledore's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139344 > Klodi now: > I do not remember the exact interview but JKR said that the portraits > just repeat some catch phrases and are not the real thing. Check the > madamscoop.org website for it > > Klodiana Thanks, you are right, Klodiana: >From Edinburgh Book Festival, 2004: "All the paintings we have seen at Hogwarts are of dead people. They seem to be living through their portraits. How is this so? If there was a painting of Harry's parents, would he be able to obtain advice from them? That is a very good question. They are all of dead people; they are not as fully realised as ghosts, as you have probably noticed. The place where you see them really talk is in Dumbledore's office, primarily; the idea is that the previous headmasters and headmistresses leave behind a faint imprint of themselves. They leave their aura, almost, in the office and they can give some counsel to the present occupant, but it is not like being a ghost. They repeat catchphrases, almost. The portrait of Sirius' mother is not a very 3D personality; she is not very fully realised. She repeats catchphrases that she had when she was alive. If Harry had a portrait of his parents it would not help him a great deal. If he could meet them as ghosts, that would be a much more meaningful interaction, but as Nick explained at the end of Phoenix?I am straying into dangerous territory, but I think you probably know what he explained?there are some people who would not come back as ghosts because they are unafraid, or less afraid, of death." Oh, well... wished I was wrong here, but... Maybe the dead wil come in dead useful in some other way, though ; ) -Mimbeltonia From jiloppy1 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 02:07:53 2005 From: jiloppy1 at yahoo.com (jiloppy1) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 02:07:53 -0000 Subject: Missing Horcrux Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139345 Does anyone else think that the missing Horcrux could have been taken and destroyed by Sirius brother? The initials are the same. Remember Sirius tells Harry that Voldemore killed his brother himself. Jiloppy. From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 12:12:59 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 12:12:59 -0000 Subject: Snape, Kreacher and the death of sirius In-Reply-To: <005001c5af08$b5a696c0$1b3b79a5@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139346 Sherry: > "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 Emmeline Vance, and it certainly helped dispose of Sirius Black > ..." > > Those words leapt off the page and just about hit me in the face! What, I > shrieked, bringing my dog running. Oh! My! Gosh! > I am certainly more convinced than ever that Snape did indeed murder > Dumbledore and is not now, if he ever was, Dumbledore's man. Finwitch: I've just rereading POA. In The Chapter titled the Servant of Lord Voldemort - there's something really intriquing. Knowing things from later books help reinterpretting things... Some things Snape says: You forgot your Potion tonight... (then there's all that not listening and never mind that now) All I have to do is call the Dementors as we come out the Willow. ..They'll be pleased enough to give you a little Kiss.. (Black's ranting about the rat again, but here's the worst part..).. 'Come on, all of you,' he said... 'I'll drag the werewolf. Perhaps the Dementors will have a kiss for him, too'. It wasn't his taking Black to be kissed, nor his wish for Lupin to recieve the Kiss that shocked me. No. It was his intent to drag Lupin out of the Willow - fully aware that he had NOT taken his potion, and considering how so many potion ingredients need to be picked on full moon, I'd say he *also* knew that. In other words, he's about to set a werewolf on the students -- as I don't think those bounds would have held after his transform... and Snape shows no regret about this, either... I just wished that Lupin would have recalled the MOON and well - er - transfigured Snape into a rat-cage, sent the kids with the rat back to the castle and stayed in the shack, but no deal. What was the *matter* with Lupin in particular? I understand that Sirius couldn't keep much track of time but Remus Lupin forgetting it's full Moon??? I'm inclined to see a *possible* blame Snape on that - he may have cast a non-verbal obliviate on Lupin, put something on the potion or maybe this was some sort of side-effect he never told Lupin about, but, of course, no proof on that... It's also a bit wonder how Snape came out of being 'knocked out' all by himself. Wonder if he was just pretending he *was* knocked out? Finwitch From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 12:35:15 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 12:35:15 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Life Debt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139347 Amiable Dorsai wrote, in message 139180: "What if it just comes down to this: As a consequence of Snape's indirect collusion in killing James, he is forced to avenge him? Or to help James' son do so? That is, only by colluding in Voldemort's destruction can Snape be rid of the debt and its (so far, hypothetical) consequences." > Del replies: Interesting idea! However, I have a murder-splits-the-soul problem here. If a Life Debt, under specific circumstances, can force an indebted person to commit a murder, thus splitting their soul, then it should be considered Dark Magic. But nobody, not even DD, seems to have any problem with it. So, I don't know. Amiable Dorsai again: I wonder if it boils down to exactly what constitutes "murder" in the sense of an act that tears a soul. Legally, murder is the deliberate, unlawful killing of a human being. Morally---well, opinions differ. Magically? If Harry croaks Voldemort in the heat of battle, would that harm his soul? Or do souls come with a self-defense clause? Suppose, having desouled all of the remaining Horcruxes, Harry drops Voldy with a sniper rifle while Voldy is enjoying his evening cocktail of snake venom and unicorn blood out on the verandah. Would that be murder? One could argue that it was still self-defense, or, at least, a legal act of war. Has he already damaged his soul a little by destroying the diary? If as many people here contend, Snape killed Dumbledore *at Dumbledore's request* did he shred his soul in the process? Is that "murder" so far as Snape's soul is concerned? Amiable Dorsai From dc.thorburn at ntlworld.com Fri Sep 2 13:21:12 2005 From: dc.thorburn at ntlworld.com (Derek Thorburn) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 14:21:12 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Missing Horcrux References: Message-ID: <006201c5afc1$316775a0$3e781652@thorburn> No: HPFGUIDX 139348 That thought had occured to me personally and I would say it's a possibility. If this is so, then Harry now only has three horcruxes to find. Derek ----- Original Message ----- From: "jiloppy1" To: Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 3:07 AM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Missing Horcrux > Does anyone else think that the missing Horcrux could have been taken > and destroyed by Sirius brother? The initials are the same. Remember > Sirius tells Harry that Voldemore killed his brother himself. > > Jiloppy. > > > > > > > > > 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 lady.indigo at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 04:30:57 2005 From: lady.indigo at gmail.com (lady.indigo at gmail.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 00:30:57 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's flaws and moral errors? was: Apologies and responsibility In-Reply-To: References: <63378ee705090112504d69f32f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <63378ee70509012130183c4c44@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139349 On 9/1/05, msbeadsley wrote: > Canon states, not what Harry *could* have done, and didn't, but > that when Harry found Malfoy crying in MM's bathroom, someplace he > wasn't supposed to be, either, Malfoy (in apparent embarassment and > anger) attacked Harry first: he pulled out his wand first and cast > the first hex. *snip* > See my previous paragraph, and furthermore, "have their *first > urge* (emphasis mine) be to use it and see what it does" is, IMO, > edging back up to Rita Skeeter's level of realistic reportage > again; canon says that at *least* two weeks passes between Harry > reading the spell in the Potions textbook and his using it *snip* > Sandy aka msbeadsley, beginning to think that Lady Indigo, as > someone closer to the age of the ostensible target audience than > many here, actually has some pretty salient points to make about > how worrisome Harry's slow rise in some regards to the challenge is > proving; us old farts may just be jaded and therefore somewhat > lackadaisically convinced that he will figure it all out, because > experience has shown us that youth always does, eventually... Lady Indigo: You're reinterpreting what I actually said. Harry finds the spell. Harry sees the spell is labelled 'for enemies'. Harry decides, at that moment, that he should make a point of trying that out later. Therefore his first *urge*, not action, is to use it and see what it does. I did NOT say that Harry goes right out and tries it, and I don't see what difference it makes anyway. He uses it, and while his use of it is partly a reflex he had plans to use it at some point anyway. If he'd only been wondering what the spell did, and used it to counter the Crucio because it was fresh in his mind, I'd have no problem with his morals there whatsoever. As for whether or not Harry will come out all right, maybe he will. I just worry that if Rowling is taking this long to point out that Harry is doing dangerously unethical things and how wrong this is, that his development will feel rushed and contrived. Or that she plans to excuse him from these things altogether. I really, really hope not. - Lady Indigo From vmonte at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 13:57:59 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 13:57:59 -0000 Subject: Apologizing to Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139350 zgirnius wrote: And, for the record, if I were Snape's mother...he's been needing lots and lots of advice about how to treat other people for about 6 books now. We could start far earlier in the books with the apologies! vmonte responds: I agree. I've been rereading the books and there are numerous times that Snape does Legimency on Harry (even as early as book one). Harry doesn't like it, and he feels the intrusion into his mind. Not only that, it's not until book 5 that Harry realizes that there is such a thing as Occlumency and Legimency--so it's obvious that when he felt that Snape was reading his mind, his feelings were right on the mark. How is what Snape does to Harry, without permission, any less worse than what Harry did to Snape when he saw that memory? "Boiling with anger at Snape, his desire to do something desperate and risky had increased tenfold in the last few minutes. This seemed to show on Harry's face, for Dumbledore moved away from the window and looked more closely at Harry, a slight crease between his silver eyebrows. "What has happened to you?" "Nothing," lied Harry promptly. "What has upset you?" "I'm not upset." "Harry, you were never a good Occlumens--" The word was the spark that ignited Harry's fury. "Snape!" he said, very loudly, and Fawkes gave a soft squawk behind them. "Snape's what's happened! He told Voldemort about the prophecy, it was him, he listened outside the door, Trelawny told me!" (Page 548, HBP) It's nice that Dumbledore doesn't use "mind rape" to get information from Harry. It's also interesting that Snape did not get mad at Harry when he got glimpses of his awful childhood. Snape got angry with Harry over the penseive memory because Harry saw something that Snape was trying to hide--and it wasn't about being hung upside down. (Harry just doesn't realize what that info is yet--I'm pretty sure Hermione will, though.) 1. We know that question 10 is about how to identify a werewolf. 2. We know that Lupin was looking strange and that Harry wondered whether the full moon was approaching. 3. We get a glimpse of the kind of person Lily was. We know that she liked James (at least I got that impression), and that James liked her. 4. We know that Snape has a very strong reaction to her interference and oddly calls her a muddblood. (The next year he proudly gives himself the moniker: Half-Blood Prince.) In PoA Snape makes fun of Lupin's third year students for not knowing how to identify a werewolf; but Snape takes his OWL exams in 5th year. Do you really think that he didn't know how to identify a werewolf? Let's assume that he didn't. What do you think he was thinking afterwards while he was going over his exam notes? I'm pretty sure that he was putting two-and-two together about Lupin. We know that Snape was always following James and gang around. And that he was trying to figure out why Lupin and the nurse where going to the whomping willow every month.Snape even gives this particular essay to Lupin's students--and guess who realizes what Lupin is because of it? Hermione! Hermione's mind works a lot like Snape's, by the way. She also has a nasty jealous temper (she attacks Ron with the birds in HBP). Since Snape seems to be proud of his mix blood background it makes more sense that he called Lily that particular name because he knew that it would hurt her and maybe because he didn't want James to know that he had any feelings for her. Vivian From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Sep 2 14:01:19 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 14:01:19 -0000 Subject: Snape, Kreacher and the death of sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139351 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > It wasn't his taking Black to be kissed, nor his wish for Lupin to > recieve the Kiss that shocked me. No. It was his intent to drag Lupin > out of the Willow - fully aware that he had NOT taken his potion, and > considering how so many potion ingredients need to be picked on full > moon, I'd say he *also* knew that. In other words, he's about to set a > werewolf on the students -- as I don't think those bounds would have > held after his transform... and Snape shows no regret about this, > either... Hickengruendler: Well, but seeing that he said that *he* wanted to drag Lupin out, you have to admit that the person who was in the biggest danger to be attacked by the werewolf was Snape himself. His decision to drag Lupin out was certainly foolish, but so was him not listening to Sirius at all. I would say his rage get the better of him, and he didn't want to miss the opportunity to take revenge on two Marauders at once. That certainly is another bit that confirms that he's a very nasty piece of work, but we already knew this. And it's not a proof that he works for Voldemort. And also, later Lupin left the Hut out of free will to deliver Wormtail to Dumbledore, either completely forgetting that he didn't take the Potion (so much about him not forgetting such an important thing, and that Snape might have obliviated him) or not caring that he didn't take the Potion. For that matter, Sirius didn't try to stop him leaving the hut either and neither did the Trio. Therefore Snape is in very good company. Personally I think it's simply a minor plot hole. Finwitch: > It's also a bit wonder how Snape came out of being 'knocked out' all by > himself. Wonder if he was just pretending he *was* knocked out? Hickengruendler: Didn't see the others as well? Of course, Snape was the first to wake up, but then, he also was the first to get knocked out. And I do not think he would allow Sirius to have his little fun with him, if he weren't knocked-out. From muellem at bc.edu Fri Sep 2 14:26:36 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 14:26:36 -0000 Subject: The way portraits talk. WAS: Re: Dumbledore's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139352 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mimbeltonia" wrote: >They leave > their aura, almost, in the office and they can give some counsel to > the present occupant, but it is not like being a ghost. They repeat > catchphrases, almost. maybe Dumbledore's portrait will keep repeating that he still trusts Severus Snape ;-) and so should Harry. As well as other true & trusted phrases. colebiancardi From vmonte at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 14:56:59 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 14:56:59 -0000 Subject: Harry's character development - the PS Stone and the Horcrux In-Reply-To: <43154C7D.7020901@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139353 KJ wrote: What would be truly frightening, if Snape was killed or unable to do as I think Dumbledore has ordered, would be Voldemort walking around with Harry's face. He would have lots of money, respect, never be suspected, he would have the keys to the wizarding world. Harry might still be trapped in there, unable to do a thing about it. Gives me the creeps. vmonte: Actually, at the end of book one Voldemort was living inside another DE, so I can see this kind of ending for book 7 myself. How about a scenario in which Harry reaches Voldemort to and then finds himself face-to-face with the Snitch--Snape. Didn't Dumbledore mention that evil lords are very paranoid, and always worrying about who may be going after their job? Maybe Lily's blood is weakening Voldemort and he may be forced to live like a parasite again. I don't think it's a coincidence that Wormtail was placed into Snape's home. I also think that Draco's task served several purposes for Voldemort. He wanted to punish and humiliate the Malfoys, while at the same time test Snape's alliegence; of course he also wants Dumbledore dead. We should als remember that Snape has no problem telling Bella and Narcissa that Dumbledore has (recently) sustained injuries, and that he is "now" a weakened man. If he has no problem telling Bella and Narcissa this you bet he's already told Voldemort this info as well (which means that Snape is probably telling the truth when he says that he fed Voldemort information that led to other peoples death). Do you really think that it is a coincidence that Voldemort targeted Dumbledore directly this year? Anyhow, what better way to keep a close eye on Snape than to live inside his body, just like Voldemort did with Quirrell. Voldemort may need the soul piece inside Harry to revive/regenerate himself once more. Unfortunately, that piece has been transformed by it's host and the love of Lily's protection. Dumbledore warns Harry about this in HBP: "The Snake?" said Harry, startled. "You can use animals as Horcruxes?" "Well, it is inadvisable to do so," said Dumbledore, "because to confide a part of your soul to something that can think and move for itself is obviously a very risky business (p506)." So we know that a living host is capable of influencing a horcrux. Poor Voldemort, once again, foiled by love. People often wish for things that are not good for them. If Voldemort cannot bear to be inside of Harry due to the love that is there, can you imagine what having a bit of Harry inside Voldemort will do? This scenario reminds me very much of book one. In which the only person that could have the Philospher's Stone was the one who wanted it but did not want to use it for evil. Vivian From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 14:58:17 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 14:58:17 -0000 Subject: Shingleton and his year group In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139354 Potioncat wrote: > Gaspard Shingleton is the Wizard of the month at JKR's website. > Here's the bit about him, which is repeated at the Lexicon: > Gaspard Shingleton -- 1959 ? present. What's pretty amazing is > that > he would most likely have been in the same year as the Marauders. Well, with James and Sirius being the brightest > of > their year, Lily being such a prodigy at potions and Severus being so > well versed in Dark Arts and inventing his own spells .that was > one > heck of a class! (So, OK, he could have been a year ahead of them.) > Not only that, he's still alive. So, where is he? Alla: Ooo, nicely spotted. That was a heck of the class indeed. You know what I am wondering - was that guy who invented Wolfsbane ( Markus, what is his last name) also in the same year as Marauders? Was he by any chance aware of Remus "furry little problem" too at one point in time?. As to whether Shingleton is Dumbledore's man or Dark Lord's? Hmmm, what I wonder is whether he was a potion maker too, or only inventer of cauldrons. If he was a potion maker, I bet Voldie tried to recruit him at one point. Maybe he has a white hair, because he indeed refused Voldemort and suffered because of it? Oy, have to stop now or will bring myself into the very outlandish territory here and it will be all your fault. :-) > > Potioncat, the person who thought Agnes, Theo and little Mark Evans > would be of interest as well. Alla, who really wanted Theo to be of interest too :-) From n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 15:44:40 2005 From: n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com (n_longbottom01) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 15:44:40 -0000 Subject: will Harry return to Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139355 > > > Amontillada: > > Since they're older than Harry, Ron and > Hermione will also be adults. I agree with > Steve that Harry may very well not be > enrolled at Hogwarts in Book 7. But what > about his two friends? I think that at least > one of them will be in school at Hogwarts, > because of how much they can do to help > Harry as a student there. n_longbottom01: I believe that Ron and Hermione will stick with Harry, as they say they will at the end of HBP. If Harry leaves school, I believe they all three will leave the school. Neville, Luna, and Ginny could be Harry's team on the ground at Hogwarts if he needs a trusted friend to help him accomplish something there. That is, if Hogwarts reopens. > Amontillada: > I suspect that Hogwarts and 12 Grimmauld > Place will become the "bases of operations" > between which Harry will maneuver in Book 7. > Who else will be based in/working out of > them? n_longbottom01: This is why I can't decide if Hogwarts is going to reopen or not. If the school reopens, Harry has a group of friends there to help him with anything he might need to accomplish at the school. If the school doesn't reopen, those friends (Neville, Luna, Ginny, Hagrid, etc.) aren't tied to that location--they would be freed up to join Harry where ever the action is. n_longbottom01 From davidm at mpks.net Fri Sep 2 14:12:40 2005 From: davidm at mpks.net (highlanderx54) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 14:12:40 -0000 Subject: Do portraits talk Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139356 I may be wrong but when Sirius died the Black portrait in Dumbledores office could not believe that the last Black was dead and went through all the portraits to look for him. Also in the beginning of the HBP the portrait told the minister that the MOM was coming. Because of those two instances I thought maybe they could talk. highlanderx54 From tab1669 at elnet.com Fri Sep 2 14:39:17 2005 From: tab1669 at elnet.com (flyingmonkeypurple) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 14:39:17 -0000 Subject: Harry's character development In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139357 Steve wrote: < HUGE SNIP> Harry has a terrible and extremely difficult task ahead of him, and I still see him as woefully inadequately prepared to face it. I will concede that Harry has immense talent and some skill at fighting. He also has fierce determination and great courage and daring; all excellent characteristics for an effective fighter, I still say he is hopelessly ill-prepared to face Voldemort. Harry is not currently even remotely able to take on the task that he appears to have to take on. FLyingmonkeypurple now: Do you mean he inadequate to kill LV or to actually face him in the end. Because he almost killed him when he was a baby. Then he survived yet again when he was 11 12 14 ,and 15. I think he can do the task. If I were Harry I would be like, I almost killed him when I was a baby. I can get this guy in the end. He may not be emotionally ready but he will do it because that's what he has to do. LV is responsible for Harry being all alone. Harry needs to make sure he doesn't have any more casualties with people he loves because of LV. Don't worry he will get the job done. Flyingmonkeypurple who has been reading to much Harry Potter and is now staring to say ER!!!! alot From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Sep 2 16:27:51 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 16:27:51 -0000 Subject: Do portraits talk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139358 Highlanderx54: > I may be wrong but when Sirius died the Black portrait in > Dumbledores office could not believe that the last Black was dead and > went through all the portraits to look for him. Also in the beginning > of the HBP the portrait told the minister that the MOM was coming. > Because of those two instances I thought maybe they could talk. Ceridwen: And, Phineas Nigellus also was offended that Mundungus was stealing Black family heirlooms. IIRC, he has also been known to snort at things or make some other incredulous noise, and make sarcastic comments, too. If this is PNB in pale memory, he must have been quite a character in life! Ceridwen. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 2 16:55:25 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 16:55:25 -0000 Subject: Apologies and responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139359 Pippin: > what about Hermione's objection that > the HBP's spells and techniques weren't > likely to be Ministry approved? I hate to say this but when Hermione started talking about Ministry approved spells and techniques I was reminded unpleasantly of Umbridge who said almost exactly the same thing in OOTP. After what we've seen of the Ministry I would say if they DID approve of something it's time to become suspicious and take a good hard look at it. Somebody said they couldn't imagine Harry using a potentially dangerous spell without knowing exactly what it would do, but I can't imagine a 16 year old boy finding a spell marked with the intriguing words "for enemies" and not be itching to try it out. But maybe that just showcases lack of imagination on my part. Eggplant From tigerpatronus at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 17:06:29 2005 From: tigerpatronus at yahoo.com (tigerpatronus) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:06:29 -0000 Subject: HBP Prediction Contest: Many thanks to the Minion Horde Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139360 I'd like to thank all the Minions for their help with first-round grading and second-round voting: The Minion Horde: All these folks worked so hard to grade the hundreds of entries in the first round and the 18 entries in the second round. Please thank them when you see them. Please note Stars of Honor for Super Minions who truly went above and beyond the call of minion duty. AnitaKH *** A Rolls *** R A (Aussie lol) Metylda Beata Wai Ieng Ho Deitrick SR Adams (Blue Jinx) * Celia Russo * Claire Fitzsimmons *** Chancie ***** Catkind Ehtesham Haque Eileen Nicholson * Hans Andr?a Hogs Head Barmaid *** Hickengruendler* HP Fan Matt * Boolean (J Balfour) * Juli (Jlnbtr) ***** Kathrin P * Ladi lyndi * Libby (Lilbit) Liane (Llama Droid) * Lyra of Jordan * Marsha Holland Shannon (Momy424) *** Namie Park Nancy Aronson * Rachael McAdams * Richelle Votaw Marianne S. Shelby Leigh * Katie Kraase Thanks again, TK -- TigerPatronus From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 2 17:08:09 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:08:09 -0000 Subject: will Harry return to Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139361 I think we'll probably have scenes in the next book of Harry walking the halls of Hogwarts, the castle is too much a stronghold of magic to ignore, but Harry will not be there as a student even in the unlikely event that the school is open. I think Harry will have far too much to do to worry about Herbology tests, and shortly after HBP came out Rowling has said she had written her last Quidditch game. Eggplant From tigerpatronus at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 17:11:37 2005 From: tigerpatronus at yahoo.com (tigerpatronus) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:11:37 -0000 Subject: HBP contest -- FILK ANNOUNCING THE WINNER Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139362 To the tune of "Every Little Thing She Did Was Magic" by Sting/The Police. Though we all made our best guesses Some of our theories became messes Like the good ship Harmony. With Tiger yelping and Tiger roaring And twenty-five Minions scoring Over two hundred fifty entries. (But) Every little time Harry did magic "D." (doliesl) had predicted them all. Twists comedic and turns tragic "D." (doliesl) knew about them all. Though "Clio" came in close second Ten total Honorable Mentions were selected >From the slush. These entries were quite spot on So we must call all of them from now on Quite HP-ish: Chancie, Julia, and Mike Pachuta KittyKatAddict, and one (Pipes) Jamie. Hexicon and Hickengruendler Janelle and Susan (Siriusly Snapey) (But) Every little time Harry did magic "D"s entry came out on top By votes and by Ruthless Rubric With scores as high as Grawp. Let's all resolve to email (doliesl) "D." A thousand times a day And congratulate him or her In the new electronic way. But whenever s/he posts a note We must all remember to say: "D." is the Most HP Among Us Whether in posts or in TBAY. (Because) Every little time Harry did magic Tiger and the Minions were convinced That "D." must be very psychic Or s/he was the real Half-Blood Prince. To recap: The Winner: "D." (doliesl) Second Place: Clio Honorable Mentions (No particular order): Chancie Julia Mike Pachuta KittyKatAddict Jamie Pipes Hexicon Hickengruendler Janelle Siriusly Snapey Susan First attempt at filk. Please be kind. TK -- TigerPatronus From rlai1977 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 17:02:16 2005 From: rlai1977 at yahoo.com (rlai1977) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:02:16 -0000 Subject: Draco and Sirius (was Re: Apologies and responsibility) In-Reply-To: <63378ee70509012059797ea3b1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139363 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, wrote: > I have to disagree to a small extent here. Draco has a conscience left, but > he doesn't fail to murder Dumbledore based on some moral principle bubbling > up and saying 'it's just not right!' It seems like any switch of allegiance > he might have would be more out of fear. A mixture of both at the very least > Oh I agree, I can't ever imagine a Draco doing anything out of purely selfless reason, the kid is just not conditioned that way ^^ All I have been arguing is that while he bears full responsibility for what he has done, it's really not his fault that he was lead to believe, or think he believes in the things he believes in. Draco's biggest problem pre-HBP wasn't that he was a racist IMO, but being an unthinking person who simply took whatever daddy said as facts- but other kids in the series do the same too, Ron for example, starts most of his comments about WW politics with "Dad reckons...", but lucky Ron we readers likes/can accept what *his* daddy thinks! > No, but a character from another background and history, plus a decided > sociopath who needs to think of himself as 'the specialist little wizard of > them all'. Admittedly I'm only going by my interpretation of Snape here, but > nothing I've seen outside the Lily incident has indicated to me he'd go by > Voldemort's rules. (Though his trouble with his dad at home might have > created negative thoughts about Muggles, true.) We really don't have enough information from the books to say how young Snape really perceived his half-blood status, that he identified much more with his pure blood parent hence the 'half-blood prince' nickname or that he held little to no prejudice against a group that would have included himself, are both theories yet to be confirmed. I was just saying that being a half-blood, in itself, wouldn't seem to be strong enough a point to argue that Snape thusly wouldn't have held much of a prejudice against the muggle-born folks, considering Voldemort's precedent. Argh. I really don't want to sound like I am actually arguing *for* a case of big, flaming racist!Snape, I really do not lean more toward this scenario than I do the opposite scenario. > Again, completely different situation IMO. We'd seen Draco show pureblood > sentiment repeatedly, before and after this and in a number of different > contexts. No, not *before*, never before. Like I said it was the first time he ever used that word in the series, and I think it's significant that Rowling made sure to create a situation in which he had other (and bigger) motivation to dish out the 'M' word than racial prejudice. And I highly highly doubt the two situations are supposed to be "completely different", as IMO the hints for a James/Harry Snape/Draco parallel have been pretty heavy-handed. And by parallel I don't mean Harry is this generation's James or Snape, or Draco this generation's Snape or James- the Harry/Draco conflict is an imperfect replica of the James/Snape conflict, but nevertheless, the similarities between the two scenes in terms of Snape/Draco using racial slur as a weapon/face-saving tool I believe were put there intentionally by the author. >Snape used it *once*, Once, because we are mostly dealing with an adult Snape, whose past we only got brief flashback of. We don't know if that truly was the only one time Snape had used the M word- though I would think if Rowling had intended to suggest a deeply racist! young Snape, she perhaps would've showed a scene in which he was using the word casually instead of in a desperate in a desperate mood. Oh and I've never quite figured out if it was a careless mistake on Rowling's part or not, but in COS the password to the Slytherin dorm was 'Pure blood'- and I thought it's normally the HoH who sets up passwords? > in my opinion simply as the insult that'd > show him to be a big bad Slytherin and hurt the most, and Lily seemed > surprised by it - as if by age 15 it had never happened before. Yes Lily did seem surprised didn't she! I think this perhaps suggests it was the first time Snape ever used the M word ever, or ever in public, or at least ever to Lily. >Snape has > targeted students, including and sometimes especially Hermione, for > everything else and not gotten in trouble with Dumbledore... Wouldn't he > have shown further bias for Slytherin at some point by using someone's > heritage as a weapon? Oh I personally don't believe adult Snape values heritage much if at all, I don't think he picks on Hermione because she's a muggle-born, I think he is nasty to her because a) she's not in Slytherin and b) she is Potter's friend and c) she, like Potter, is way overrated in Snape's opinion ;-) I rather think Snape has grown out of his muggle-born's-are-inferior, or at least inferior-enough-that-I-see-no-wrong-in-joining-a-group-that-is-hostile-to-them belief, and I wouldn't be too surprised if it turns out Snape never had much of a prejudice against the muggle-borns to start with. I was just saying that while you appear to be pretty unforgiving to a kid who parroted his dad's opinions, you are quite willing to interpret Snape's similar actions (the M word and joining the DEs) in the most harmless light? I could say Draco likely has joined the DE mostly for power, glory, and a place in the new world order too (wasn't he harping on all the power & glory in the tower top scene?). That saying neither Draco nor Snape seems to have a deep-seated, personal hate-on for the non-pure blood is not to make them appear less guilty, IMO, just saying that they both thusly have a better chance of turning away from Voldemort. > Er, yes. Which is why I said it was my opinion. Er, yes you did, I am sorry to have unwittingly suggested otherwise ^^;; > True. I just get the feeling that's not the case. Snape's a lot of things, > worse things IMO, but I just don't see this as being one of them. > The Death Eaters offered power, glory, a place in the new world order, and > all that good stuff. Any number of wizards could have fought on Voldemort's > side for those reasons instead. Pinning Snape as a definite racist makes as > little sense to me as the opposite does to you, so I guess we can't really > know for sure. (Unless the Snape/Lily theory is proved right, of course. > ^_^) Both the Snape-as-definite-racist and Snape-as-not-racist-at-all theories do not make much sense to me, actually ^_^ I hope I have explained a bit more clearly in this post what I really disagree with you- it's not your reading of Snape, which I quite agree with, actually. RP From derek at rhinobunny.com Fri Sep 2 17:26:42 2005 From: derek at rhinobunny.com (Derek Hiemforth) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:26:42 -0000 Subject: An (interesting ?) parallel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139364 > Irene Mikhlin wrote: > Alla: > See, so many people insist that Harry should apologise to Snape > for looking into pensieve. What do you think - does Snape owe > Harry a BIG apology for being complicit in his parents death? Derek: Sure he does. And I think he'll make it, though I don't think he's made it yet. I think his "apology" to Harry will lie in making it possible for him to defeat LV. Now, there's no proof it will take the form proposed below, but what the heck? Here's a theory... To tie in the "Opposite of a Horcrux" thread, let's say it's true that Lily's sacrifice for Harry (and possibly Sirus' and Dumbledore's as well, if they can be viewed as such) made Harry more powerful or better able to fight LV. Those were all people who loved Harry. What would happen if someone who genuinely *hates* Harry nevertheless made the ultimate sacrifice for him? Would that strengthen Harry less... or maybe *more*? After all, noble and selfless as Lily's sacrifice was, she was still sacrificing herself in order to save the person she loved most in the world. Wouldn't it be even more remarkable for someone to truly sacrifice himself in order to save the person he *hates* most in the world...? From raissad at hotmail.com Fri Sep 2 17:13:54 2005 From: raissad at hotmail.com (Raissa Devereux) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:13:54 -0000 Subject: PS8 Theory -- JKR Foreshadows Snape's Loyalty Through Symbolism In PS Ch. 8 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139365 Snape is loyal to DD's cause. and the three questions JKR has him ask Harry in Chapter 8 of PS foreshadow that, imo..... First, snape asks about Asphodel&Wormwood. Here's an lj entry that explains their signicance to the Snape-Is-Loyal theory: http://www.livejournal.com/users/hraefn/64498.html Second, he asks about bezoars. Harry saves Ron's life after learning about them from HBP/Snape. And finally, Snape asks about Aconite/Wolfsbane/Monkshood. Here's a passage about aconite that I find extremely telling: Some species of Aconite were well known to the ancients as deadly poisons. It was said to be the invention of Hecate from the foam of Cerberus, and it was a species of Aconite that entered into the poison which the old men of the island of Ceos were condemned to drink when they became infirm and no longer of use to the State . http://www.botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/a/aconi007.html#med It was said to be the invention of Hecate from the foam of Cerberus Cerberus == Fluffy == protection. Snape sustained an injury getting past Fuffy to maintain the protection of the stone. It was a species of Aconite that entered into the poison which the old men of the island of Ceos were condemned to drink when they became infirm and no longer of use to the State. DD knew he was dying from the horcrux and from the green goo (It wouldn't surprise me if we find out the goo contains aconite). Snape is following the plan when he AKs DD. Then, there's a second point about aconite from the above site: Note---Aconite and Belladonna were said to be the ingredients in the witches' 'Flying ointments.' Aconite causes irregular action of the heart, and Belladonna produces delirium. These combined symptoms might give a sensation of 'flying.'---EDITOR) I think the aconite connection with flying ointments foreshadows DD "flying" off the tower after Snape AK's him. Who knows, maybe aconite and belladonna were in the green goo DD drank, and combined with the energy of the AK spell became literal movement. I think the symbolism holds up, because of this third passage from the aconite site: Quote: It was then called Aconite (the English form of its Greek and Latin name), later Wolf's Bane, the direct translation of the Greek Iycotonum, derived from the idea that arrows tipped with the juice, or baits anointed with it, would kill wolves. JKR was foreshadowing the need for the Wolf's Bane (aconite) potion for Lupin in PoA. Snape's trauma with Were-Lupin obviously shapes his motivations. That being the case, she was using the questions to foreshadow the rest of Snape's storyarc, as well. Thanks, Raissa D. From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Fri Sep 2 17:36:24 2005 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 2 Sep 2005 17:36:24 -0000 Subject: New file uploaded to HPforGrownups Message-ID: <1125682584.1235.21949.w101@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139366 Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the HPforGrownups group. File : /filk.doc Uploaded by : tigerpatronus Description : You can access this file at the URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/filk.doc To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit: http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files Regards, tigerpatronus From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Fri Sep 2 17:45:10 2005 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 2 Sep 2005 17:45:10 -0000 Subject: New file uploaded to HPforGrownups Message-ID: <1125683110.165.99275.w109@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139367 Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the HPforGrownups group. File : /HBP Prediction Contest/Filk Announcing Winners Uploaded by : tigerpatronus Description : Every Little Time Harry Did Magic You can access this file at the URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/HBP%20Prediction%20Contest/Filk%20Announcing%20Winners To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit: http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files Regards, tigerpatronus From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Fri Sep 2 17:45:40 2005 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 2 Sep 2005 17:45:40 -0000 Subject: New file uploaded to HPforGrownups Message-ID: <1125683140.1039.67546.w118@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139368 Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the HPforGrownups group. File : /HBP Prediction Contest/Rubric.doc Uploaded by : tigerpatronus Description : How we graded first-round entries You can access this file at the URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/HBP%20Prediction%20Contest/Rubric.doc To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit: http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files Regards, tigerpatronus From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 2 17:54:03 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:54:03 -0000 Subject: Shingleton and his year group In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139369 > Alla: snip > As to whether Shingleton is Dumbledore's man or Dark Lord's? Hmmm, > what I wonder is whether he was a potion maker too, or only inventer > of cauldrons. If he was a potion maker, I bet Voldie tried to recruit > him at one point. > > Maybe he has a white hair, because he indeed refused Voldemort and > suffered because of it? > > Oy, have to stop now or will bring myself into the very outlandish > territory here and it will be all your fault. :-) > Potioncat: I think, for what it's worth, that Shingleton was a horrible potion maker. He never made it into NEWT level. Bright enough guy, but a bit scatterbrained and either could never remember which way to stir the potions or forgot about stirring alltogether. He was, of course a class mate of Severus's and probably drove him crazy. So, he grows up, goes out into the world and invents this self stirring cauldron to accomodate his own forgetfullness. Gets rich, gets noticed gets put on Chocolate Frog cards. Snape, no doubt, choked on his morning toast when he read of it in the Daily Prophet. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Sep 2 17:59:08 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:59:08 -0000 Subject: Apologies and responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139370 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > Pippin: > > > what about Hermione's objection that > > the HBP's spells and techniques weren't > > likely to be Ministry approved? Eggplant: > I hate to say this but when Hermione started talking about Ministry approved spells and techniques I was reminded unpleasantly of Umbridge who said almost exactly the same thing in OOTP. After what we've seen of the Ministry I would say if they DID approve of something it's time to become suspicious and take a good hard look at it. Pippin: I'm sure that's exactly what you were supposed to think. But in fact the spells that Umbridge was trying to remove from the syllabus and refusing to teach in DADA *were* Ministry approved. Stopping people from using non-approved items is what Arthur Weasley's doing these days, are you suspicious of him too? The point being made with sectum sempra was that Harry's pure heart doesn't protect him from doing Dark Magic unintentionally. He needs to realize this, though he hasn't yet, as a necessary prelude to forgiving himself for his unintentional role in Sirius's death. I agree that it was very natural of Harry to use the spell. It was imprudent rather than wicked. He is not going to get over all his weaknesses in time for the final showdown -- what he needs to do, as Fake!Moody told him, is play to his strengths. Pippin From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 18:20:26 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 18:20:26 -0000 Subject: Draco and Sirius (was Re: Apologies and responsibility) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139371 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rlai1977" wrote: > Oh and I've never quite figured out if it was a careless mistake on > Rowling's part or not, but in COS the password to the Slytherin dorm > was 'Pure blood'- and I thought it's normally the HoH who sets up > passwords? zgirnius: Actually, the Heads of House probably don't pick the passwords. For Gryffindor (the only House where we ever see this in any detail) the passwords seem to be set up by the Fat Lady. For example, "Abstinence" is the password in HBP, right after she gets roaringly drunk, then horridly hung over, with the monks in the other painting. Or, in PoA, after the Lady was attacked and the valiant Sir Cadogan took over the job, he was changing the password *all the time*, and annoying everyone, but since no other portait was willing to take the job, they were stuck with him, and his passwords. To address the main point of your post, I too doubt racism was Snape's primary motivation. To me he seems to have been a Dark Arts nerd. Probably joined the DEs as a Faustian bargain he later regretted (or not...) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 18:54:04 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 18:54:04 -0000 Subject: Snape, Kreacher and the death of sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139372 Finwitch wrote: > I just wished that Lupin would have recalled the MOON What was the *matter* with Lupin in particular? I understand that Sirius couldn't keep much track of time but Remus Lupin forgetting it's full Moon??? I'm inclined to see a *possible* blame Snape on that - he may have cast a non-verbal obliviate on Lupin, put something on the potion or maybe this was some sort of side-effect he never told Lupin about, but, of course, no proof on that... Carol responds: For me, the only reasonable explanation for Lupin's uncharacteristic behavior is the DADA curse, which also explains why Pettigrew showed up on the Marauder's Map (which Lupin ought to have turned in) just as he was looking at it--on a full moon night when he had not yet taken the potion (which Snape was dutifully bringing just seconds too late). The curse not only caused Lupin to transform without his potion and endanger three students (insuring that he would be forced to resign), it may also have caused Wormtail to escape to the Dark Lord. That's the only explanation that makes sense to me. See my post on the DADA curse and the resulting thread for more details on this theory, which is still a work in progress: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137961 > Finwitch wrote: > It's also a bit wonder how Snape came out of being 'knocked out' all by himself. Wonder if he was just pretending he *was* knocked out? > Carol responds: Considering that he was hit by three Expelliarmus spells at once and hit his head against the wall (it was bleeding, remember?) I think it's safe to say that he was really knocked out. Also as hickengruendler noted, he would never have suffered the indignity of being floated out of the Shrieking Shack, with his head carelessly bumped against the passageway, if he were faking being knocked out. As for his waking on his own, we know he's a pretty powerful wizard. Note also that he could have had HRH expelled for hitting him with that spell. Instead he tells Fudge that they were confunded. He also gets the students safely back to the castle, along with the hated Black (whom he wants to see "Demented"), by floating them on stretchers. Clearly he *didn't* want the children to be victims of the werewolf. (He wouldn't have minded an Order of Merlin for saving them, though!) There's no question that Snape hated both Black and Lupin, but that hatred is personal and goes back (at least) to Sirius's attempt to (in his view) murder him. I see no evidence in the PoA Shrieking Shack scene that he's working for Voldemort (OFH!Snape, maybe). It's Lupin's untimely transformation (while Snape is still unconscious) that allows Voldemort's servant (Wormtail) to escape. The DADA curse at work, IMO. Carol From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Fri Sep 2 19:11:49 2005 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 19:11:49 -0000 Subject: The Eggplant and Snape and I In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139373 -- "Cathy Drolet" wrote: > > > There are 40 students, according > > to JKR, in Harry's year. -- a purplish vegetable replied: > Yes but she also said there were about 1000 students at > Hogwarts and 7 times 40 is not equal to 1000. JKR has > admitted she's not very good at math so I think a > statistical analysis is unlikely to lead to new insights > into the books. She was asked to resolve the inconsistency in her publication day interview. She said that she has always intended that the number of kids in Harry's class was forty, even though that may not square with the total number of wizards that "ought" to be at Hogwarts based on the British wizarding population. (see quote below) Given Rowling's degree of precision with respect to Harry's class, I think it's reasonably safe to assume she intended to convey the impression that 10 of 40 received Outstanding O.W.L.'s, though whether she really meant that as a comment on Snape's teaching is a more doubtful question. Since people have said that the O.W.L.'s are supposed to correspond roughly with some standardized exam system in Britain, maybe folks there could give us an idea whether a 25% rate for the top mark is within the range of plausibility within that system. I know that that "high pass" rate would be above average -- but well within the range of possibility -- on the U.S. advanced placement exams. But the APs are administered only to students who elect to take them after one or more advanced courses in the subject, whereas all of the Hogwarts students (viz. Crabbe, Goyle) seem to take O.W.L.s at least in the core subjects, which would seemingly lead to lower grades overall, if the grading schemes were comparable. -- Matt From lady.indigo at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 18:33:33 2005 From: lady.indigo at gmail.com (lady.indigo at gmail.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 14:33:33 -0400 Subject: Apologies and responsibility In-Reply-To: References: <63378ee705090120216320f2ed@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <63378ee705090211336584a75@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139374 On 9/2/05, lupinlore wrote: >>Her legitimacy and claim to obedience puts makes that of Snape, only a potions teacher, seem paltry indeed. Why now, should Harry be respectful of Snape or Sluggy, people whom he does not trust and who have never given good reason to be trusted or respected, when he is positively encouraged and rewarded for not being obedient and respectful to Umbridge? Because Dumbledore says so? Yeah, right. I wouldn't buy that one, either.<< Lady Indigo: Okay, what? How does simply learning the way you're supposed to learn in an academic situation equate to 'respect for Slughorn'? I'd have said he shouldn't cheat for any professor in any class, not unless a dire situation - which affected the good of all - called him to. Harry wasn't using the book for a blow against Slughorn most of the time; frankly if he wanted the guy to leave him alone he should have probably kept his head down, instead. And I don't believe that he kept the book around solely to help get his hands on Slughorn's memory. He started using it and made the descision to keep it long beforehand, kept using it for a few chapters after the memory was produced, and only made the connection once or twice at all. If he found it necessary to cheat just for the good of getting his hands on the memory, knowing at the time that what he did was wrong, I'd have excused it. Instead he never even owned up to the fact that it was just that. I never, ever suggested that the reason Harry should 'tow the line' when it came to his two Potions professors simply because they were authority figures. That would have been ridiculous, considering how cruel or incompetent authority often is in these books. I said that he should only break the rules when it was necessary or the rules were decidedly, obviously unfair. "Don't cheat" and "don't intrude on other people's privacy" are fair rules. Slughorn was essentially harmless in his case, so the cheating was unnecessary unless it was solely to retrieve the memory - and it wasn't. I personally think that with his attitude towards it, Harry would have cheated either way. And while Snape was using aggressive and unfair teaching methods it would have done Harry good from a practical perspective, the fact that he needed to fight Voldemort on these terms, to try and learn it the 'proper' way (as common sense dictates that Voldemort probably wouldn't give him the same opportunity to poke around in the Dark Lord's memories). Hence the cheating and the Pensieve were both Harry breaking fair rules for completely unnecessary reasons. It had nothing to do with authority at all. Lupinlore said: >>Far from it, Dumbledore seems not to think that any sort of systemic or formal preparation for facing Voldemort is particularly important, and seems to be totally satisfied with Harry's grades and his methods for obtaining them.<< Lady Indigo: If Occlumency were completely unimportant, why would Dumbledore throw two enemies into a room together and expect them to get along for the sake of it? Unless it's supposed to be some attempt at mediation, in which case I'd say Dumbledore's an idiot, but the Snape's guilt debate aside he's definitely not. I think he put things like Harry's cheating and Occlumency aside for what he felt was more important at the moment, especially in light of their constantly learning about what Voldemort was and wasn't capable of. Lupinlore said: >>Given those types of attitudes and maladroit handling, at Harry's age I would have readily realized I had practical carte blanche for rule breaking and enjoyed it to the fullest. I have to say, considering the situation he has been a veritable model of rectitude, honesty, and restraint.<< I'd by no means go that far in praising him. And if Harry's so totally incapable of having a moral compass because of these things, doesn't the fact that he's the hero of this story bother anyone? Especially in light of this being a children's book - and believe me, I am the LAST person to say 'think of the children' most of the time. Lupinlore said: >>The very authorities that Harry had just seen throw Hagrid into Azkaban for no other reason than that they feared public pressure and had to have someone to blame? The very authorities that yielded to blatant bribery from Lucius Malfoy? Yeah, right.<< Lady Indigo said: I meant approaching someone more like Dumbledore, who they knew they could trust and who could give them advice on how to best present this to the Ministry so they'd be believed. So you honestly think that, barring the need to save Ginny as soon as possible, their best course of action was to take justice into their own hands, and throw Lockhart down in the Chamber with them when they knew that he was incompetent and could easily be killed? - Lady Indigo From lady.indigo at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 18:48:25 2005 From: lady.indigo at gmail.com (lady.indigo at gmail.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 14:48:25 -0400 Subject: Draco and Sirius (was Re: Apologies and responsibility) In-Reply-To: References: <63378ee70509012059797ea3b1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <63378ee7050902114829b3a657@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139375 On 9/2/05, rlai1977 wrote:>>I was just saying that while you appear to be pretty unforgiving to a kid who parroted his dad's opinions, you are quite willing to interpret Snape's similar actions (the M word and joining the DEs) in the most harmless light?<< Not exactly. I think Snape's M word is different, again, and as far as the Death Eaters go it's not a choice I'd call harmless at all. I agree it was probably for a lot of similar reasons, I just think Draco's prejudice backed him as well. But Draco's probably less culpable than Snape is, considering family pressures and everything. The only difference is Snape's (IMO) already fully repented. My problems with Draco are really more along the lines of his sadistic bullying (I consider him the aggressor a LOT of the time in the Harry/Draco case, or having especially cruel retaliations when Harry 'started it'), his whining, his running to daddy instead of standing on his own terms, and the fact that he seems to have just one dimension in all of this. It's only towards the end of HBP that we see him realizing the consequences of being just that, a shadow of his father. But he's not earned my respect as a character yet, friend or foe. Snape has, for being more complex and (in my mind) taking on incredible dangers and ultimately being on the right side. rlai1977 said: >> > Er, yes. Which is why I said it was my opinion. Er, yes you did, I am sorry to have unwittingly suggested otherwise ^^;;<< Thought you were implying I was stating it as fact with nothing to back it up. Sorry. :) No harm done, I hope. - Lady Indigo From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Fri Sep 2 19:53:06 2005 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 19:53:06 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty (was "Apologies and responsibility") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139376 --- Lupinlore: > > As for the cheating accusation, I don't agree at all. > > Harry was doing what he had been instructed to do -- > > i.e. prepare a potion. He used somewhat different > > directions than the rest of the class, it's true, > > however the potions he prepared were exemplery. He > > never claims to have invented the directions himself, > > he did not gain these directions in a dishonest manner, > > is not forbidden to use them, and offers to share > > them with his classmates. --- Pippin: > Only Ron and Hermione, IIRC. What about the others? > And what about Hermione's objection that the HBP's > spells and techniques weren't likely to be Ministry > approved? It's fine to experiment, but I hope that lab of > yours ... doesn't allow teenagers to download anonymous > formulae from the internet, pass them off as their own > work, and prepare them for the first time in a classroom, > potentially exposing other students to harmful or explosive > mixtures. And I certainly hope it doesn't lie about the > source of its information, as Harry did when he was > finally asked. I just wanted to chime in on the academic dishonesty point. The borderline between honesty and dishonesty depends on institutional expectations, which are sometimes spelled out more clearly and sometimes less clearly. In many RW classes, students are expected to study and even prepare problem solutions in groups, with the results then presented individually. In most RW classes, students are permitted to do research from sources other than the course materials and use it in class. (In HP-land, Hermione is portrayed as someone who researches everything to death, and people seem to think that makes her an exemplary student, not a cheater.) We aren't told all that much about what the expectations are at Hogwarts, but what Harry did in Potions was not all that far from either of the RW models I mentioned above. IMO we are supposed to read it as sketchy but within the bounds of academic honesty. No one in class was creating potions from scratch -- they were all following instructions. It's not Harry's fault that Slughorn used an outdated textbook whose formulas had (it appears) been significantly improved upon by a sixth-year student. The only thing that makes the situation questionable is that Slughorn obviously *thought* that Harry was improvising on the textbook instructions himself, while he was in fact using Snape's handwritten modifications. But ask yourself this: If Harry had gone to the library and found some better textbook with more modern formulas for the potions, and then had extrapolated from those -- or simply copied those down to use in class -- would you think that was dishonest? Would he have been obliged to tell Slughorn how he arrived at the improvements, or would it be enough that he found them from sources accessible to everyone? If the troubling part is that Harry was acting on "inside information" the we need to query whether Snape's formulas were in fact secret, or whether over the 50 years since publication of the original book those improvements have in fact become more commonly known. Hermione -- who unlike us is familiar with the Hogwarts expectations regarding student work -- seems to be more troubled by the idea that the modifications are unreliable than that they are not publicly available. And that suggests to me that she herself is shortsightedly fixated on the coursebook as final authority, and is not able or willing to exercise an intuitive feel for the subject. -- Matt From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 19:58:12 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 19:58:12 -0000 Subject: The way portraits talk. WAS: Re: Dumbledore's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139377 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mimbeltonia" > wrote: > >They leave their aura, almost, in the office and they can give some > > counsel to the present occupant, but it is not like being a ghost. > > They repeat catchphrases, almost. > > maybe Dumbledore's portrait will keep repeating that he still trusts > Severus Snape ;-) and so should Harry. As well as other true & > trusted phrases. > > colebiancardi bboyminn: On one hand I don't believe that living-portraits are mere charactures of their former selves, although Mrs. Black comes extremely close. But then she was probably as barmy as a brew's vat when she was alive. If you look at Phineas Nigellus, you see that he has memories of being a teacher, although, I concede that he could be reflecting an attitude rather than real memories. Another clue that they have some depth is that Phineas seems genuinely concerned about Sirius when he hears that he is dead, but again, that could simply be a reflection of attitude rather than genuine concern. Further, the portraits of headmasters are able to engage in dialog with the current headmaster, they are also able to carry messages, and to carry out various tasks like finding a wounded Arthur Weasley and alerting the necessary people. So, they do have some substance. Again, I fall back on my old oft-said statement that they are like actors in a movie. They capture their characters to an extremely convincing degree, they have knowledge of history and the nature of the character, but, much like an actor, when they are probed at depth about a subject, their knowledge falters. They have a significant base of knowledge to draw from, but again the depth and analytical skills simply aren't there. I absolutely remember reading this, but I have never been able to find it again. In an interview, JKR said that a piece of the subject of a portrait is contained in that portrait; a bit of hair or skin or something similar. That gives the portrait some true essense of the orginal person, but as we see, essense is not necessarily substance. As to the degree of that substance, I think we should NOT use Mrs. Black as the prime example, like I said, she was probably always a little dillusional, rather we should use the many other portraits we see who do have /some/ substance, far more than 'catch phrases' but who are none the less far short of the real thing. I'm sure at some point Harry will talk to Dumbledore's protrait. It's going to be interesting to see the depth displayed by that conversation. Not sure if I actually said anything, but there it is. Steve/bboyminn From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 20:08:03 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 20:08:03 -0000 Subject: Snape, Kreacher and the death of sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139378 > Hickengruendler: > I do not doubt that it was > Kreacher who got in contact with Narcissa, because someone must have > told him to injure Buckbeak at the right time, so that Sirius wasn't > already finished mending the hippogriff and able to answer Harry's > call from the fire. That does not mean, that Snape couldn't have > given some informations as well, or that Snape isn't evil, but > Kreacher not contacting Narcissa, as Finwitch suggested, leads IMO to > some pretty big plot holes. Finwitch: You say someone told Kreacher to injure Buckbeak. I'd say that someone was Snape. I believe you may recall this discussion in OOP: Snape: 'Sit down, Harry'. (or did he say Potter like usual.) Sirius: 'I'd prefer it if you didn't give any orders here, Snape. It's my house, you see'. I doubt Sirius was referring only to this 'sit down'-business or questioning Sirius' presence there. Maybe Snape had been 'ordering poor Kreacher around' as well as having some portraits carry messages and Sirius had spotted him at it or possibly Kreacher muttered something about it under his breath... Let's not forget the portrait of Bellatrix Kreacher had in the kitchen... no need to go to Malfoys when there's that portrait... Dumbledore's not the only one who can use portraits as messengers, you know... Finwitch From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 20:13:29 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 20:13:29 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty (was "Apologies and responsibility") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139379 Matt wrote: But ask yourself this: If Harry had gone to the library and found some better textbook with more modern formulas for the potions, and then had extrapolated from those -- or simply copied those down to use in class -- would you think that was dishonest? Would he have been obliged to tell Slughorn how he arrived at the improvements, or would it be enough that he found them from sources accessible to everyone? Carol responds: I don't know about RL science classes, but students who use outside sources in an English class are required to cite them in endnotes and a bibliography. Not to do so is plagiarism, punishable by expulsion on the university level (I'm not sure about high school). If a student used his older brother's or sister's annotated copy of a novel to write an interpretive essay, that would also be considered plagiarism if the student was caught. If, for example, the student had the same teacher as the older brother or sister and the teacher recognized the ideas, she would be within her rights to ask to see the textbook and to give the student a failing grade. The ideas are not Harry's. He is failing to "cite his source." That's cheating in my view. Carol, sorry to use up a post on this topic but unable not to respond From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 20:40:37 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 20:40:37 -0000 Subject: Draco's culpability (Was: My doubts about Snape being Evil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139380 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > For one thing, we don't know if Draco actually *is* a Death > > Eater. > >>a_svirn: > Yes, we know this. We might not know for sure whether or not he > has the Mark yet, but what does that matter? Betsy Hp: Erm... Because it's the mark of a *Death Eater*? Or at least, I'm working with the definition of a Death Eater being one who has joined Voldemort's side and bares Voldemort's mark. That's the one the books seem to have provided. If we go with your definition as someone who thinks Voldemort is cool and likes Voldemort's philosophy, I would say that once Christmas is over Draco is definitely *not* a Death Eater. But, for the sake of this discussion I think it makes more sense to follow what the books say. > >>a_svirn: > > Most importantly, he pledged himself to his cause and carries > Voldemorte's orders out diligently. What else could the Dark Lord > wish in his servant? Betsy Hp: Willingness? Seriously, pretend you're an evil megalomaniac. Who'd you rather have on your side: a boy whose family you have to threaten in order to get him to do as you say, or someone who's willing to kill their family to help achieve your goals? > >>Betsy Hp: > > But for another, we know that Draco was selected for a suicide > > mission he was expected to fail. > > > > The words used here ("granted" "duty" "chance") speak to an > > assignment, IMO. > >>a_svirn: > Yes, of course it is an assignment. But I don't quite see what his > receiving orders from Voldemort has to do with the fact that he's > joined on his own volition. After all, that's what servants do: > receive orders, try to please their masters and get punished if > they don't. And in HBP that Draco made it clear he was quite keen > to join, after which, yes, he got his first glorious assignment. Betsy Hp: Okay then, prove to me that Draco approached Voldemort. I've been asking for canon for a while now, and none has been forthcoming. But there's plenty of canon showing that Draco was assigned this task by Voldemort. It was Voldemort's choice, not Draco's and everything in the text points to that. At least, as far as everything I've found. > >>Alla: > Moreover JKR in the interview specifically stated that Draco IS a > Death Eater. > Betsy Hp: Yeah, and let me add that the interviews really don't count for me. For one thing, they can be interperted in many different ways. (ie Draco was *preparing* himself to become a Death Eater by shutting down compassion, however once he got on the road to becoming one he realized he couldn't shut his compassion down so completely.) For another, if she can't say it in the books, than she ain't saying it. > >>Pheonixgod: > And the fact that it was most likely his sweet auntie Bella who > taught him occulomency means she knows his mind better than anyone > else. If she describes him as eager and excited I am going to take > her at her word. He ain't good enough to hid what he's really > feeling from her. > Betsy Hp: I don't doubt that Draco was eager and excited when first presented with his task. The Order shamed his family and made his mama cry. He's obligated to exact some vengence. (Plus, we know that Draco, like Harry, hates being on the outside of things.) However, by Christmas time, at the latest, the vengence deal starts to sour for him. Voldemort has to twist the screws to get Draco to act. (And Draco's moral sense is strong enough that even with the pressure he's under he cannot bring himself to kill -- the biggest proof that he's no Death Eater that can be given, IMO.) Though I'd point out that when Bellatrix describes Draco as excited, the assignment has just been given. I'm betting the training kicked in *after* Spinners End. > >> Betsy Hp: > > It was *never* Draco's choice, if he's even a Death Eater at > > all. There were also several comments made about Draco's age. > > He's too young (at sixteen) to make the decision to become a > > Death Eater. > >>a_svirn: > In principle, yes, he's too young to make the choice. The fact > remains, however that he did or there would have been no DE on > Hogwarts grounds. Betsy Hp: Well, no. The fact remains that Draco was *used* by Voldemort to get Voldemort's *actual* Death Eaters onto Hogwarts grounds. Or, do you catagorize Madame Rosmerta as a Death Eater? After all, she gave Draco some important assists. And if you point out that she was under an Imperious, may I point out that Draco's mother *had a gun to her head*? > >>Phoenixgod: > Ultimately I think JKR is going to redeem Draco even though I > think she probably shouldn't. He doesn't deserve it and I think > there needs to be some contempory of Harry who well and > irrevocably falls to the dark. I want Draco to be this student. > Though I would settle for Ginny... > Man, I hate that girl :) Betsy Hp: Oh yes, I'm pretty sure Draco's one of the good guys now. I'm even fairly confident he'll live through book 7. The poor kid has had his face smeared into the ground so many, many, times (by enemies, teachers and family) that I was grateful to see him finally given a little dignity. But since we're voting for "irrevocably evil" students here, let me throw in my vote for one of the twins. God, I'd love it if one of those little monsters was actually *seen* as a little monster. Betsy Hp From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Fri Sep 2 20:42:12 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 16:42:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] The way portraits talk. WAS: Re: Dumbledore's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050902204212.42550.qmail@web53309.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139381 klodiana_xha wrote: Mibletonia: > > I do not think the portraits convey information that the depicted > person knew in his or her time. They only react much in the same way > as they did when alive, repeat phrases etc. > > > BUT: I'll be happy to find that I am wrong on both items! Klodi now: I do not remember the exact interview but JKR said that the portraits just repeat some catch phrases and are not the real thing. Check the madamscoop.org website for it Klodiana Luckdragon: I seem to remember Jo saying something like that as well, but when Sirius died didn't Phineus Nigellus's portrait react to the death with shock and go visit his portrait at 12 Grimmauld place to see if it was true. 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! SPONSORED LINKS Adult learning Adult education Harry potter tie Harry potter hat J k rowling Harry potter book 6 --------------------------------- YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "HPforGrownups" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPforGrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Sep 2 20:48:43 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 20:48:43 -0000 Subject: Snape, Kreacher and the death of sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139382 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > > Finwitch: > > You say someone told Kreacher to injure Buckbeak. I'd say that > someone was Snape. Hickengruendler: That seems pretty unlikely to me. Most of all, because I think this would be pretty complicated, because Snape as well could not have known when exactly Voldemort would send the Vision to Harry. Snape was in Hogwarts, he probably had no prior knowledge to when Harry would have gotten the vision. Of course Voldemort could have found a way to tell Snape, who told Harry. It is theoretically possible, but it seems so awkward, IMO. Why not go the straight-forward way, namely via the Malfoys or Bellatrix, who do not live in a school full of Dumbledore supporters, who could have gotten Voldemort's message for Snape. And there's also the fact, that Kreacher still feels some loyalty for Bellatrix and Narcissa. If I were Voldemort, I would find it much more logical to tell them to give Kreacher instructions, instead of someone to whom Kreacher has no ties (as far as we know). > Let's not forget the portrait of Bellatrix Kreacher had in the > kitchen... no need to go to Malfoys when there's that portrait... > Dumbledore's not the only one who can use portraits as messengers, > you know... > Hickengruendler: Did Kreacher have a portrait or simply a photography? I know that in the German translation it was translated as "Foto". And so far we have seen people on photographies waving but never talking. That and they somehow seemed to be stuck at the time the photo was taken. (Although there are some contradictions in canon. Percy left the Weasley family photo, yet on Moody's Order photography, James and Lily still treat Wormtails like a friend). Hickengruendler From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Fri Sep 2 20:50:30 2005 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 20:50:30 -0000 Subject: Apologizing to Snape? In-Reply-To: <008301c5ad8d$47af9350$403a79a5@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139383 --- Sherry Gomes wrote: > i actually felt very bad when Harry looked in that > pensieve and sat there saying, no, Harry, don't do that.... > However ... it was implied upthread that Harry should have > expressed remorse for what his father had done. > Fiddlesticks. Nobody should have to apologize for the > long ago actions of someone else. Harry did not participate > in whatever went on between the marauders and Snape and owes > Snape nothing for that. I don't think the suggestion was so much an apology as a show of empathy, something that, frankly, I think Harry was feeling in that scene in OP. (Although I must admit I appear to have seriously misread the scene between Harry and Snape at the end of OP, which I had thought at the time might signal an emerging detente between the two, see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/80938.) When he watched the bullying scene in the Pensieve, Harry surely realized how it felt to be in Snape's position, because that is the one -- as Snape himself well knows from the Occlumency lessons -- that Harry himself had frequently occupied. If we are speaking purely from the point of view of a mature morality, Harry should have found an opportunity to apologize to Snape for sticking his nose into the Pensieve. And while he was at it, he could have allowed that, no, he was not amused by his father's abuse of Snape; he was embarrassed by it. The truth would have cost Harry nothing. -- Matt From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 21:01:49 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 21:01:49 -0000 Subject: The Eggplant and Snape and I - Size In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139384 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > "Cathy Drolet" wrote: > > > There are 40 students, according > > to JKR, in Harry's year. > > Yes but she also said there were about 1000 students at Hogwarts and > 7 times 40 is not equal to 1000. > bboyminn: Well, I'm straying from the central subject somewhat, but I thought I would comment on the School Size issue. If you have the right attitude, it's actually quite easy to resolve. First, I take JKR statement of 1,000 students to be the capacity of the school, not the current enrollment. We see there are plenty of unused classrooms at Hogwarts, that certainly implies that the enrollment is far from maximum. I extend this into the real world by pointing out the the enrollment at the University of Minnesota can fluctuate by as much as 30%. Further, I'm not sure JKR ever specifically said Harry's class year was 40 students. We know (pretty much) that there are 10 in Harry's class, it also /appears/ that there are 10 Slytherins, we /assume/ there are 10 Hufflepuffs, and we really don't have enough information about Ravenclaw to even assume (as far as I know). However, 7 X 40 is good guess, but a flawed estimation because it is based in unfounded and unlikely assumptions. It is illogical to think that all class years are exactly the size of Harry's class year. We don't know how many are in in Percy's year or Fred and George's year. It is futher illogical to assume that all House sizes are exactly the same. I would guess many more Hufflepuffs than other Houses when view across a broad spectum of time. Further, more Ravenclaw than Slytherin or Gryffindor. So, likely Hufflepuff is largest followed by Ravenclaw with Slytherin and Gryffindor being the smallest and general equal in size. That assumption, means that Harry class size is not representative of the school in general. I've always estimated current enrollment in the range of 400 to 600. Regardless of the accuracy of that guess, I'd say it's far more accurate than 7 X 40 = 280. > > None of the students knew, before > > the beginning feast, of the change > > of Potions Master. > > True again, but as soon as they heard they may have guessed that the > new Potions Master probably didn't have the same unusually stringent > entry requirements Snape did and borrowed books from friends or > received them from a Federal Express Overnight Owl. > > Eggplant bboyminn: I don't really think many students would be eager to take potions. Snape doesn't make it a very pleasant or appealing situation. So, only student who truly had a strong interest or who desperately needed the class for a future career would take it. I really do think most student would be glad to be able to drop it. So, I really don't see a huge difference between Slughorn's class size and Snape's assumed class size. I think the difference is Harry and Ron, who were added in because Slughorn was teaching. Most other students had made up their mind not to take it regardless of the teacher. It's also possible the other Heads of Houses simply accepted their students decision on the matter, whereas McGonagall encouraged Harry to continue studying potions because she knew he wanted to be an Auror, and she had promised to help him achieve that goal. So, any conflict between the before and after size of the Potions class doesn't bother me, because I don't see that there would be much difference. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Sep 2 21:04:23 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 21:04:23 -0000 Subject: Lupin and the DADA curse was Re: Snape, Kreacher and the death of sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139385 > Carol responds: > For me, the only reasonable explanation for Lupin's uncharacteristic behavior is the DADA curse, which also explains why Pettigrew showed up on the Marauder's Map (which Lupin ought to have turned in) just as he was looking at it--on a full moon night when he had not yet taken the potion (which Snape was dutifully bringing just seconds too late). > The curse not only caused Lupin to transform without his potion and endanger three students (insuring that he would be forced to resign), it may also have caused Wormtail to escape to the Dark Lord. That's the only explanation that makes sense to me. See my post on the DADA curse and the resulting thread for more details on this theory, which is still a work in progress: Pippin: I'm afraid the only reasonable explanation for Lupin's behavior is that he's a double agent. We know now he could have sent his patronus up to the castle for help at any time. Even if he forgot about the full moon and everything else, it's difficult to understand why he wouldn't have done so -- unless he knew Pettigrew couldn't be allowed to fall into Dumbledore's hands. The curse forced Lupin to reveal what he was -- a killer. But Harry's mercy intervened to save Pettigrew's life and give Lupin one last chance. Unfortunately, he used it to return Pettigrew to Voldemort. Pippin From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 21:26:42 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 21:26:42 -0000 Subject: Shingleton and his year group In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139386 "potioncat" wrote: > Shingleton is on the Chocolate Frog cards, so anyone who cared to pay > attention would already know about him. What's pretty amazing is > that > he would most likely have been in the same year as the Marauders. > I'm > basing this on Snape and Lupin listed as born in 1959/60 and Black, > Potter and Evans listed as 1960 according to the Lexicon. > > He's an inventor. Well, with James and Sirius being the brightest > of > their year, Lily being such a prodigy at potions and Severus being so > well versed in Dark Arts and inventing his own spells .that was > one > heck of a class! (So, OK, he could have been a year ahead of them.) zgirnius: You know, I was bothered by that at first. But then it occurred to me...isn't Hogwarts the only game in town? If you're a wizard/witch born in England, Ireland, Scotland, or Wales, basically, you go to Hogwarts, or you don't go to magical school at all (OK, some really wealthy families might send their kids out to Durmstrang, or wherever, but not that many, I would imagine). A RL institution like Harvard likes to brag they are educating the future leaders of society, but they know they are missing quite a few. But Hogwarts really is getting most of them! --zgirnius, who nearly choked on her own snack while reading over Potioncat's Snape/Shingleton speculations, definitely worth a glance in post #139369... From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 21:27:38 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 21:27:38 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty (was "Apologies and responsibility") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139387 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Matt wrote: > But ask yourself this: If Harry had gone to the library and > found some better textbook with more modern formulas for the > potions, and then had extrapolated from those -- or simply copied > those down to use in class -- would you think that was dishonest? > Would he have been obliged to tell Slughorn how he arrived at the > improvements, or would it be enough that he found them from sources > accessible to everyone? > Carol responds: > I don't know about RL science classes, but students who use outside > sources in an English class are required to cite them in endnotes > and a bibliography. Not to do so is plagiarism, punishable by > expulsion on the university level ... The ideas are not Harry's. He > is failing to "cite his source." That's cheating in my view. > > Carol, sorry to use up a post on this topic but unable not to respond bboymin: Sorry Carol, but I'm going to have to go with Matt on this one. There is a BIG difference between writing an essay for English class and preforming a practical experiment in Chemistry or Physics class. Although, I admit you are correct if we are talking about English. In potions class the only judgement is the final result. If we transfer that to Chemisty or Physics, as long as you are judged on the results and are not required to write a paper on the experiment, I think outside reference sources would be allowed. The goal seems to me to learn how to perform a task, and to understand the nature and interaction of the substances present in the experiment, not to specifically follow a set of instruction. Note that Snape always wrote HIS instruction on the board, he never had them reference a book to create a potion. However, if Harry were required to write an essay on the experiment/potion when he was finished, then he certainly would be obligated to site the reference materials he used. If he failed to do so, his offense would not be cheating in the experiment/potion, but simply failing to site relevant references, and failing to site relevant references in this case would not be plagiarism in my opinion. I really don't see what Harry did as cheating. I suspect the teacher wouldn't have a problem with other student using other reference material in class to create specific potions. I also suspect that most of those students were just too lazy to do it. Although, Hermione would have been likely to use outside references, I think she fell into a mind set that put her so against Harry using that annotated book, that she held ridgedly to the assigned textbook, and never considered the possibilities. One small point, I think the teacher would have allowed into class any resonable reputable outside reference, though I suspect he would have been hesitant to allow handwritten notes from a former student. He main concern would have been the reliability of the material. However, once establish as reliable, I don't see a problem with those notes. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From tigerpatronus at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 21:38:31 2005 From: tigerpatronus at yahoo.com (tigerpatronus) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 21:38:31 -0000 Subject: HBP contest -- File of entries, rubric, and filk Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139388 Hello All, I uploaded a folder in the "Files" area that includes the Elite 18's Entries, the Ruthless Rubric, and the Filk announcing the winner (Every Little Time Harry Did Magic) for all to see in perpetuity. TK -- TigerPatronus From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 22:07:00 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 22:07:00 -0000 Subject: Draco's culpability (Was: My doubts about Snape being Evil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139389 > Betsy Hp: > Erm... Because it's the mark of a *Death Eater*? Or at least, I'm > working with the definition of a Death Eater being one who has > joined Voldemort's side and bares Voldemort's mark. That's the one > the books seem to have provided. If we go with your definition as > someone who thinks Voldemort is cool and likes Voldemort's > philosophy, I would say that once Christmas is over Draco is > definitely *not* a Death Eater. a_svirn: For one thing, the *snippet* of my original post you quoted cannot even remotely be called a definition. (Definition followed right after where you snipped.) Nor do I remember any such *definitions* in the books. Harry first learns about DE in the World Cap aftermath where they are termed (by Bill) as "followers and supporters of Lord Voldemort". Vague and noncommiting . Voldemort himself mockingly calls them "my true family" apparently quibbling on the Latin sense of the word: `household dependants', `servants'. (The "family" greeted him grovelling and hailing him as "Master".) Granted he did say (again mockingly) that they are "still united under the Dark Mark", meaning "under my banner". But it is *his* symbol, not theirs. I would agree however that DE is someone who joined Voldemorte's side. Like Draco did. > > Betsy Hp: Seriously, pretend you're an evil megalomaniac. Who'd > you rather have on your side: a boy whose family you have to > threaten in order to get him to do as you say, or someone who's > willing to kill their family to help achieve your goals? a_svirn: You know, Betsy, while I admire your passionate defence of Slytherins and even agree with you on the number of points, I must say that personal appeals like this cannot be considered as a strong argument. I don't particularly want to imagine myself a megalomaniac. I do, however, agree with you that we should follow what the books say. And they say that this particular megalomaniac doesn't care much about loyalty. He values usefulness. That's why he keeps Wormtail, and even rewards him knowing all well that he is not feeling like a happy bunny on Voldemort's service and that his Master disgusts him. That's why he promotes his "slippery friend" Lucius over faithful Bellatrix (contrary to his own promises about honouring the Lestranges above all others). Certainly Snape didn't miss the opportunity to point it out to Bellatrix in "Snipper's End" dismissing her years in Azkaban as a "fine, but useless gesture". And last but not the least, that's why Snape himself despite his dubious loyalty seems to be a current favourite. And Voldemort doesn't have to choose between boy who has a family to threaten and, say, his aunt who would gladly sacrifice her family. He has both. > > Betsy Hp: > Okay then, prove to me that Draco approached Voldemort. I've been > asking for canon for a while now, and none has been forthcoming. > But there's plenty of canon showing that Draco was assigned this > task by Voldemort. It was Voldemort's choice, not Draco's and > everything in the text points to that. At least, as far as > everything I've found. a_svirn: I don't think that Draco approached Voldemort. The very notion is ridiculous: how can one do it, send an application? The DE "family" functions as a sort of a secret society, and novices are likely to be carefully selected and then "approached". So no, I can't provide you with "canon". Just like I cannot provide you with canon on the subject of Lucius, Snape, Bellatrix, Crabbe etc approaching Voldemort. They all likely to have been approached at some point and "invited" to join. Of course, it is not the sort of invitation you can easily refuse. But it is true not only for Draco but for every DE, expect maybe from the very first ones, who probably didn't realised from the start what they were getting themselves into. > > > Betsy Hp: The fact remains that Draco was *used* by Voldemort to > get Voldemort's *actual* Death Eaters onto Hogwarts grounds. Or, do > you catagorize Madame Rosmerta as a Death Eater? After all, she > gave Draco some important assists. And if you point out that she > was under an Imperious, may I point out that Draco's mother *had a > gun to her head*? > > a_svirn: Do suggest that Draco was under the Imperius? If he was I take my words back. Yet I doubt that you can "provide canon" to prove it. From msbeadsley at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 22:16:26 2005 From: msbeadsley at yahoo.com (msbeadsley) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 22:16:26 -0000 Subject: Harry's flaws and moral errors? was: Apologies and responsibility In-Reply-To: <63378ee70509012130183c4c44@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139390 Oh, my, this got long. I decided to combine responses and not use up 2/3 of my per diem on it. ;-) msbeadsley: <> Lady Indigo: But you can't make this simple; it just isn't. (And may be the root of the problem here; most moral absolutes are an illusion.) What you're saying is that it's okay for Harry to break the rules when he feels privy to information constituting a sufficient reason to do so. Aren't you? Lady Indigo: I don't agree that Harry broke "the rules to get a good grade in Potions." At what point do you think he should have 'fessed up? I think the good grades were entirely incidental, with Harry's motivations being thus: curiosity, reluctance to emerge as unworthy of Slughorn's fulsome praise; more curiosity, fear that the book would be confiscated if known, curiosity, and a vague sense that, in the bigger picture, he needed all the help he could get. Not that there wasn't likely a tremendous satisfaction for him in excelling unfairly in a class where he'd been unfairly handicapped for five years. Fight dirty? How is this fighting dirty? With Snape? Canon makes it clear to me that Harry's plunge into the Pensieve was about getting information, not his constant power struggle with Snape: [ Harry gazed at the Pensieve, curiosity welling inside him....What was it that Snape was so keen to hide from Harry? The silvery lights shivered on the wall....Harry took two steps torward the desk, thinking hard. Could it possibly be information about the Department of Mysteries that Snape was determined to keep from him?] It was Snape who made that assumption, that it was about "scoring points." Harry was, once again, following his curiosity, taking another prime opportunity to find out all he could about circumstances, in case he needed to *once again* use his own judgement and act outside authority's. "[M]ore than just worried about him?" What does that *mean*? The way I see it, JKR has written three very good characters with HRH; the trio members are not always entirely scrupulous, not always kind, and they're not always fair. Sometimes they're even -gasp- dishonest (Hermione's Confundus, Ron's appropriation of the fanged frisbee). They make mistakes (like Harry's using a spell he couldn't predict or control), and sometimes they indulge their baser impulses. (This is a thing that happens in human beings, whether they like to admit it to themselves or not, and whether or not they've reached a level of maturity themselves to see it. It does not mean they are damned; it doesn't even mean they're on the brink. Just my opinion, obviously.) But the character in the books with the most authority over the definition of good and evil, a true ivory tower academic if there ever was one, thought they, all three, were just dandy. So are you saying you condone situational ethics? Isn't that partly what you don't like about Harry? msbeadsley wrote: Lady Indigo: Um, I thought I was just explaining how it came across to me. That might be useful information, actually. So, you think a person should be judged by their impulses, urges, and intentions, rather than their actions? (I can't help thinking of poor President Carter, lusting in his heart...) I'm not going to go into my impulse/action ratio. Nope. So, let's say Harry's first "urge" *was* to find out what it did; BRAVO! This is not a rich kid from a gated community in some New England Muggle prep school who's come across something with a barrel and a trigger whose first thought is to go out and hunt up someone who's annoyed him and point and shoot. If Harry had let the school year end without at least firing that spell at a watermelon, I'd be VERY worried about his chances of surviving that final, inevitable encounter with Voldemort. If he hadn't had Hermione chewing on him constantly, he might have done some judicious experimenting; but he put it off in an effort to avoid any more nagging (which was just *tiresome* in HBP) and ended up using it in extremis, against someone he was pretty sure (correctly, IMO) was a DE, who *had* just "pulled the trigger" on a spell Harry KNEW to be excruciating (hence the name), damaging (hence Neville's parents in St. Mungos), and as close to a capital offense as anything in the world. (Harry was more horrified by the spell's effect on Draco than I was, BTW. I was only grudgingly glad Snape came along, to be honest.) In a moral sense, the only excuse I need for what Harry did is his reaction when he saw the results. You indict Harry over and over again for his lack of rectitude; I say that's extreme; he's far guiltier of poor judgement than anything else, and under the circumstances not even an extreme case of that. You see, I disagree flat-out with "Harry is doing dangerously unethical things" and "how wrong this is." I think we have seen some indicators that Harry is not quite as innocent and pristine as Dumbledore's words to him would have him appear, and that he has a temper, and that he has been affected by having lacked a clear moral role model during his formative years, and that he has some sorting out to do in terms of how far he might be willing to go to "vanquish" the Dark Lord. You indict him. I sympathize with him. Maybe it's because I see him as a child and you see him as something much closer to a peer and so are less forgiving. I also think that JKR *wants* us to consider that Harry is showing some signs of behavior that, in another, less stubbornly anti-DE and anti-Voldemort human being, could be contributing factors to ending up "in the Dark." (I expect it to come into play as Harry continues to develop empathy; that he will look back on some of the things he has done or almost done and be less rigid in his judgement of others; a quality related somewhat to that all-important love.) I just don't imbue it with the drama you do, and so don't see Harry as having as far to "come back" from or get to. He's definitely teetering a bit, okay, that's appropriate. I don't want a little tin hero who always knows immediately and beyond a shadow of a doubt what the "right" thing to do is. (Even comic books have gone beyond that.) Being an adult means acknowledging the ambiguities, IMO, though growing the capacity to do so (as Harry is having to do) is sometimes painful; sometimes idealism doesn't fade, it breaks, leaving many sharp and painful shards to dispose of. Sandy aka msbeadsley, tipping her hat to Lupinlore and others, and apologizing profoundly for the weird line breaks she's mystified by From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Fri Sep 2 22:21:27 2005 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 22:21:27 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty (was "Apologies and responsibility") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139391 --- I wrote: >> If Harry had gone to the library and found some better >> textbook with more modern formulas for the potions, and >> then had extrapolated from those -- or simply copied those >> down to use in class -- would you think that was dishonest? --- Carol replied: > I don't know about RL science classes, but students who > use outside sources in an English class are required to > cite them in endnotes and a bibliography. Not to do so is > plagiarism, punishable by expulsion on the university level.... Are we talking about writing a paper or doing a practical classroom exercise? Even in literature classes, people read plenty of secondary sources and what they read can inform their thinking without becoming plagiarism. (I don't cite anything when I tell my kids that the yellow brick road in The Wizard of Oz was supposed to symbolize a return to the gold standard, even though I learned about that symbolism from a high school history teacher who, incidentally, failed to cite Henry Littlefield's "Parable on Populism" article when he taught the point.) Moving to science, which I agree is the better analogy to Potions, students simply do not cite anything when doing laboratory exercises. Perhaps a lab report would explain the source for unconventional methods used in the experiment, but the potions exercises don't call for a report; they are purely practical. As I said in the prior post, it does bother me a bit that Harry doesn't disabuse Slughorn of the misconception that his potionmaking is intuitive, but what is being taught is the ability to successfully make the potion, not intuition. > If a student used his older brother's or sister's > annotated copy of a novel to write an interpretive essay, > that would also be considered plagiarism .... I'm not sure I agree with that conclusion, but let's bring the example in line with the situation in HBP: Not an older sibling's book, but a secondhand book with scribbles in the margin. I used many secondhand books in my day, and it never would have occurred to me to cite the unknown author if my reading of the text had been colored by the marginal notes (any more than I would expect a subsequent owner to cite my reactions if they influenced him or her), though I suppose my view might change if it had been some really choice and ingenious commentary. (In the RW, in fact, there's considerably more protectable intellectual property in a pharmaceutical or food formula than in unpublished literary annotations.) And when I conduct classroom discussions, I'm far more concerned with students' understanding of the ideas they are expounding than with the originality of those ideas. It's that last point that I actually find most provocative in thinking about Harry's use of the HBP book. Do the "talented" potionmakers in the class actually understand what they are doing, or are they simply following instructions? Does Harry -- presented with the contrast between the textbook instructions and Snape's -- understand things any better than the rest of the class, or is he, too, simply following instructions? I'm not a scientist, but I am a cook, and I tend to assume that there is some talent, some feel, some art involved in potionmaking, as there is in cooking, but I fear that none of the students we see has really picked this up. (Certainly not Hermione, who insists on slavishly following the recipe.) One would think the concept would be attractive to Harry, who tends to perform much better at instinctive/reactive tasks (flying, sports, duelling) than at book learning. -- Matt From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Fri Sep 2 22:53:17 2005 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 22:53:17 -0000 Subject: Snape, Kreacher and the death of sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139392 --- Finwitch wrote: > > Let's not forget the portrait of Bellatrix Kreacher > > had in the kitchen.... Dumbledore's not the only one who > > can use portraits as messengers, you know... --- hickengruendler asked: > Did Kreacher have a portrait or simply a photograph[]? > I know that in the German translation it was translated > as "Foto". And so far we have seen people on photograph[s] > waving but never talking. It's a photograph in the English, too: "[Kreacher] had also managed to retrieve the silver-framed family photographs that Sirius had thrown away over the summer." OP Ch. 23. -- Matt From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Fri Sep 2 23:02:51 2005 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 23:02:51 -0000 Subject: The Eggplant and Snape and I - Size In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139393 Here is the quote from Rowling's publication day interview that I meant to append to my last post. As I read it, she is confirming that she envisioned exactly 40 students in Harry's year, although she concedes that this does not really square with her idea about the total number of students at Hogwarts (larger, aroung 600) or about the size of the total British wizarding population (which she apparently is estimating as approximately 3,000 school-age children, but as she says "don't hold me to these figures, because that's not how I think"). -- Matt "Here is the thing with Hogwarts. Way before I finished 'Philosopher's Stone,' when I was just amassing stuff for seven years, between having the idea and publishing the book, I sat down and I created 40 kids who enter Harry's year. I'm delighted I did it, [because] it was so useful. I got 40 pretty fleshed out characters. I never have to stop and invent someone. I know who's in the year, I know who's in which house, I know what their parentage is, and I have a few personal details on all of them. So there were 40. I never consciously thought, 'That's it, that's all the people in his year,' but that's kind of how it's worked out. Then I've been asked a few times how many people and because numbers are not my strong point, one part of my brain knew 40, and another part of my brain said, 'Oh, about 600 sounds right.' Then people started working it out and saying, 'Where are the other kids sleeping?' [Laughter.] We have a little bit of a dilemma there. I mean, obviously magic is very rare. I wouldn't want to say a precise ratio. But if you assume that all of the wizarding children are being sent to Hogwarts, then that's very few wizard-to-Muggle population, isn't it? There will be the odd kid whose parents don't want them to go to Hogwarts, but 600 out of the whole of Britain is tiny. Let's say three thousand [in Britain], actually, thinking about it, and then think of all the magical creatures, some of which appear human. So then you've got things like hags, trolls, ogres and so on, so that's really bumping up your numbers. And then you've got the world of sad people like Filch and Figg who are kind of part of the world but are hangers on." See http://tinyurl.com/c9u3c (about halfway down the page). From lealess at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 23:14:36 2005 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 23:14:36 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty (was "Apologies and responsibility") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139394 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Matt" wrote: --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Matt" wrote: > > As I said in the prior post, > it does bother me a bit that Harry doesn't disabuse Slughorn of the > misconception that his potionmaking is intuitive, but what is being > taught is the ability to successfully make the potion, not > intuition. > > In the RW, in fact, there's considerably more protectable > intellectual property in a pharmaceutical or food formula > than in unpublished literary annotations.) And when I conduct > classroom discussions, I'm far more concerned with students' > understanding of the ideas they are expounding than with the > originality of those ideas. > > -- Matt The problem I have with Harry's use of the notations: he didn't do the work (research, or even finding and buying cheat sheets) to get the notations on his own and yet he is passing off the improved potions he gets as his own innovations. He seems to enjoy the acclaim he gets from Slughorn, but he doesn't really earn it; he's just following instructions like everyone else, only he has a better set of instructions, and that acquired only by luck. It's more like a researcher stealing a colleague's notes or methods and then publishing the work as his own. Your analogy to intellectual property is apt. Harry doesn't take using the notes seriously because he is not going to pursue a career in potions, he's used to dancing on the edge of propriety, and he's used to having extra help. He thinks of the Prince as a friend, who's not only allowed him to do well in class, but allows him to be at the front. I wonder how Slughorn would feel about Harry using the notes? Anyway, it seems like a kind of cheating, though perhaps not technically -- more of a moral failure, to me. It's just not "upstanding." lealess From bundy at morainevalley.edu Fri Sep 2 21:00:28 2005 From: bundy at morainevalley.edu (regalusblack) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 21:00:28 -0000 Subject: Harry's Lack? of Skill (Was Re: Harry's character development) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139395 > > Steve/bboyminn wrote: >>I will concede that Harry has immense talent and some skill at >fighting. He also has fierce determination and great courage and >daring; all excellent characteristics for an effective fighter, >but I still say he is hopelessly ill-prepared to face Voldemort. I felt that way too while reading HBP, frustrated even, at Harry's disinterest in training himself. But from a writer's standpoint, my sense would be that it would be better for Harry to be at a gross disadvantage--much more interesting that way. If he'd worked hard in HBP to develop his skills, I think as readers we wouldn't feel as much suspense. Harry HAS to be an underdog here. Too, JKR has discussed how she's working in a genre, and battles between baddies and underdogs are a part of that. On another note, I think the series as a whole questions the idea of formal education--teachers are often fallible, classes & lessons pointless. What's more important is friendship, loyalty and courage. I think the last book will show Harry vs. Voldy with the odds so ridiculously stacked against him . . . and through the usual means-- serendipity + quick thinking + something to do with "love"--Harry will prevail. Cheers, Sheryl From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Sep 2 23:46:59 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 23:46:59 -0000 Subject: Not a Dark Mark ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139396 > > Valky wrote: > > > > > Throughout HBP Draco starts to look more and more sickly. He keeps > > disappearing. In Borgin and Burkes he shows Borgin something that > > frightens him, Harry thinks its a Dark Mark, but how can we be > > sure. Can we even really be sure that a Dark Mark would frighten > > Borgin? When Snape showed Fudge his burning Dark Mark, it didn't > > frighten him much, and there are many in the WW who don't even > > know what they are. > > Well it could be a Dark Mark, but since there *is* reason for > > doubt, then why don't we call it a Werewolf bite ? > > > Carodave: > If Draco had been bitten by a werewolf, I think it would be more > evident. At the very least, he would disappear every month, Valky now: Yeah he does disappear a lot. And Harry cannot get into the room of Requirement by asking to find Draco Malfoy. At the end of the book we find Draco *was* up to something in the ROR, so I do still wonder why the ROR didn't provide. Maybe Draco wasn't there, or maybe Draco wasn't Draco. Both work for me. In either case there is evidence to be considering an additional factor in Draco's dissappearances. carodave: > at worst,he would transform and attack fellow students or staff. Valky: Heehee that would give the game away though wouldn't it. I was just thinking, JKR has already hidden one werewolf from us, so we know what we are looking for the second time around. If there was going to be another hidden werewolf, then it would have to be hidden a whole lot *better* this time, a little bit deeper. In POA Lupin didn't have a reason for looking pale and haggard, like Draco did, it's true. But Draco is much younger and more energetic in that respect. It *would* take more to bring a semi-adult boy almost in his prime down to exhausted, than an older guy who has been through the mill a few thousand times already. So I can imagine it possible and realistic giving Draco three problems instead of two. Especially if you needed a place to hide a werewolf, a boy like Draco with two huge problems already could conceal it well for you. I guess what I am saying is that the only Werewolf Draco to consider here is a deliberately well hidden one. But it does look plausible to me. carodave: > I think he looks pale and sickly due to the pressure of his new job > working for V. It must be incredibly stressful every month he > doesn't accomplish his goal, knowing that is one step closer to > destruction (of him, his family, etc.). Valky: *If* there is a hidden werewolf Draco, then this is what we are supposed to believe. But I digress. The fact is, there are unanswered questions about Draco's behaviour in HBP. Moaning Myrtle says that he is crying about being bullied. We have to locate these bullies, and a werewolf family fits a line of suspects as well as any family of DE's will. There is also him saying that nobody could help him, which is not quite true since Snape is bound to a UV to do just that unless he isn't talking about helping him with his task. Finally there is his comment to Snape at Christmas, that the whole Dark Arts Defense thing is silly, noone needs defending against it, which begs the question of how scared he really is of Voldemort, he sounds like Bella, he sounds faithful. > Carodave: > How would Borgin even recognize a werewolf bite? Does a werewolf > bite have distinguishing characteristics that make it different from > a dog bite or another animal's bite? Other than the results of > turning the victim into a werewolf of course. > Valky: That is an excellent question. I do wonder if a werewolf bite is distinctive in any way. The man in St Mungos in OtP gives us no clue except that he looked green and sickly. The only clue we have is that Ron says Bills wounds are unlikely to ever heal fully, because they are cursed. This seems to be as close as we have to canon disctinctiveness of a Werewolf bite. At least it is something. ;D From jmrazo at hotmail.com Sat Sep 3 00:08:49 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 00:08:49 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty (was "Apologies and responsibility") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139397 > bboymin: > > Sorry Carol, but I'm going to have to go with Matt on this one. There > is a BIG difference between writing an essay for English class and > preforming a practical experiment in Chemistry or Physics class. > > Although, I admit you are correct if we are talking about English. > > In potions class the only judgement is the final result. If we > transfer that to Chemisty or Physics, as long as you are judged on the > results and are not required to write a paper on the experiment, I > think outside reference sources would be allowed. The goal seems to me > to learn how to perform a task, and to understand the nature and > interaction of the substances present in the experiment, not to > specifically follow a set of instruction. I agree with you steve. I don't think what Harry did was cheating either. I'm not even sure if it was borderline. Harry, regardless of what instructions he used, made all of his own potions. even following directions, Potion making is probably hard--just like RL chem or physics experiments are. I know that I flubbed all sorts of labs in school and continue to screw up my cooking despite having recipies right in front of me. I think that speaks to Harry's technical skills in potion making, which is the only thing in the class that mattered. So even if Harry was using better instructions, that is no garrantee of a good potion. So at least in part, Harry deserved his accolades. phoenixgod2000 From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Sat Sep 3 00:18:04 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 00:18:04 -0000 Subject: Apologizing to Snape? In-Reply-To: <001c01c5ae1f$c3d2f9d0$23c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139398 > > CathyD: > > > a) Snape is a slimy, nasty, oily, greasy, evil, Evil, EVIL git. > According to my Britspeak Dictionary, "git" implies a measure of incompetence, maybe not quite as incompetent as "ejit", but getting there. And whatever you think of Snape's character (and I would be the first to admit that it isn't a very pleasant one, also that he is hygenically challenged and you probably smell him before you see him), Snape is a very bright boy. --Gatta From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Sat Sep 3 00:26:47 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 00:26:47 -0000 Subject: Apologizing to Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139399 > > > > CathyD: > > > > > > > a) Snape is a slimy, nasty, oily, greasy, evil, Evil, EVIL git. > > > According to my Britspeak Dictionary, "git" implies a measure of > incompetence, maybe not quite as incompetent as "ejit", but getting > there. And whatever you think of Snape's character (and I would be the > first to admit that it isn't a very pleasant one, also that he is > hygenically challenged and you probably smell him before you see him), > Snape is a very bright boy. > > --Gatta > Conversely (oh, how I love playing devil's kitty cat!) not everyone who is socially and hygenically challenged is necessarily evil. I doubt any of us would have cared to know Paul of Tarsus (I have this mental image of Timothy scuttling about the Mediterranean smoothing down the feathers that his boss has ruffled up), and I certainly wouldn't want to spend Eternity with him, but in spite of his unappealing ways the man is a bloomin' Saint. --Gatta From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 01:03:50 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 01:03:50 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Harry WAS: Re: Apologies and responsibility In-Reply-To: <63378ee705090211336584a75@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139400 > Lady Indigo: > If Occlumency were completely unimportant, why would Dumbledore throw two > enemies into a room together and expect them to get along for the sake of > it? Unless it's supposed to be some attempt at mediation, in which case I'd > say Dumbledore's an idiot, but the Snape's guilt debate aside he's > definitely not. Alla: I think that there is a good chance that Dumbledore did exactly that - namely he was hoping that Snape and Harry will get along while they will learn more about each other. But I don't see it as sign of idiocy, more like Dumbledore's idealistic faith in Snape, IMO. Lady Indigo: > I think he put things like Harry's cheating and Occlumency aside for what he > felt was more important at the moment, especially in light of their > constantly learning about what Voldemort was and wasn't capable of. Alla: I think that Dumbledore put Occlumency aside permanently. I think that after OOP he realized that it is not going to be the most important tool to help Harry ( it is your heart that saved you). I think Dumbledore finally understood Harry after MOM battle and correctly identified what Harry's main strength is. I think he pretty much knew it earlier, but did not realize that this is going to be Harry's main weapon. NOT closing his mind, something which we per JKR know Harry will never learn because even though he is damaged, he is honest about himself and does not repress his feelings. > Lady Indigo said: > I meant approaching someone more like Dumbledore, who they knew they could > trust and who could give them advice on how to best present this to the > Ministry so they'd be believed. So you honestly think that, barring the need > to save Ginny as soon as possible, their best course of action was to take > justice into their own hands, and throw Lockhart down in the Chamber with > them when they knew that he was incompetent and could easily be killed? Alla: Wasn't Dumbledore already dismissed as Headmaster at the time they went to Chamber? They could not approach him even if they wanted to, but in a sense Harry did ask for help from Dumbledore and received it , didn't he? "However," said Dumbledore, speaking very slowly and clearly so that none of them could miss a word, " you will find that I will only truly have left this school when none here are loyal to me. You will also find that help will alwasy be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it" - CoS, p.264, paperback. And this quote: "First of all, Harry , I want to thank you, " said Dumbledore, eyes twinkling again. "You must have shown me real loyalty down in the Chamber. Nothing but that could have called Fawkes to you" - CoS, p.332, paperback. As to whether it was their best course of action, well, they did need to save Ginny ASAP and they had nobody to go to. Actually, they DID try to approach Lockhart first, as DADA teacher, so I'd say that yes they did everything they could. JMO of course, Alla From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Sep 3 01:09:45 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 01:09:45 -0000 Subject: Weasley Spy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139401 > Betsy Hp: > Okay, so this is a bit of a crackpot!theory, but I was thinking > (yes, yes, my first mistake) about Molly Weasley's wonderful clock > and how the entire family is marked as being in "mortal peril". > And it occurred to me that perhaps one of the Weasleys is a spy > for Voldemort. That would indeed put the other members of the > family in mortal peril because the spy could be discovered at any > time. And then either the spy or the discoverer could be killed. > Which leads to the next question: Who's the spy? Jen: Ooh, this one is too fun to pass up. But a brief tangent first: Since you mention the clock, what did people think about the throwaway line of Molly's "I suppose everybody's in mortal danger now...I don't think it can be just our family....but I don't know anyone else who's got a clock like this, so I can't check. Oh!" (chap. 5, p. 85, Scholastic). The only clock of its kind. Interesting. I'm still waiting for all these timepieces to have some significance, and it might be exciting to find out the clock is actually the Gryffindor Horcrux, if you put aside the absurdity of Voldemort leaving it unprotected for Molly to carry around in her laundry basket (he's capable of absurdity from what we've seen so far). Wormtail seemed to feel the Wealsey house was a good hiding place, and it's possible more than one of the Horcruxes is out of Voldemort's control. There was nothing keeping them from scattering when he went to vapor, esp. if he'd failed to finalize protections. OK, stop me now ;). Anyhoo, about the timepieces: Am I really late in realizing the watch Dumbledore gave indirectly to Ron, his own watch, and the Weasley Clock may all point to a familial connection between these guys? You combine that with the red hair and JKR's comment about "Dumbledore's family would be a profitable line of inquiry..." Now back to the Weasley Spy. Betsy HP: > Percy Weasley: He seems the obvious choice as he's the outsider, > but the thing is, he *really* is the outsider. He's the only > Weasley not in the Order AFAWK, and so therefore would be of > little use to Voldemort. Jen: Yeah, I'm ruling him out as too obvious as well. He'd be better off as a Ministry spy if anything. Betsy hp: > Ginny Weasley: What with her exposure to Voldemort in CoS she > could well be the spy. But JKR gushed on so enthusiastically > about what a great girl she is for Harry. Or could that have been > a deliberate mislead? Jen: We definitely need to watch Ginny. JKR likes to remind us of all the horrible things she has planned for Harry, and giving him the girl then taking her away would be pretty vicious. Ginny's on my short-list. Or at the very least she's a goner. Betsy hp: > Charlie Weasley: I think he's fairly easy to dismiss because he's > never there. Harry barely even knows him. But, with the wedding > coming up Charlie will be newly introduced. So maybe he shouldn't > be dismissed so casually. Jen: Ding, ding, ding ding!!! Charlie's the winner here in my mind. The least conspicuous, supposedly off in another country but we don't know for sure. Must know the 12 uses for dragon's blood, can control dragons...suspicious. Betsy hp: > Molly Weasley: I don't think she's cunning enough to be a spy, > frankly. And Voldemort killed her two brothers, so it's personal > for her. However, what if Voldemort threatened her family? Would > Molly cave into that sort of pressure? Jen: Betsy! Did you write this post just to be able to savor the possibility of Molly going to the Dark Side?!? Hee. Many people will love this one. You know what? I really hope Harry will discover a person defying Voldemort who is working alone, outside the Order. Someone with a personal agenda, an axe to grind, maybe even gone round the twist a bit obsessing about revenge on Voldemort. Even better if we know that person already, and a woman would be cool: McGonagall, Sprout, Hooch etc. Betsy hp: > Arthur Weasley: He loves Muggles so darn much it's hard to see him > buying into the Death Eater philosophy. And he's got pretty > strong principles so I'm not sure Voldemort could blackmail him. >or could he? Jen: Turning Arthur would be even bigger than Molly. One of JKR's only fathers who is actually alive AND good at the same time. She needs to keep this token father on the good side. Betsy hp: > Bill Weasley: He got attacked and nearly killed by Fenrir during > the Hogwarts battle, and that should give him a pass. *But* > Fenrir is such a wild card that I'm not sure that gaurantees > anything. Jen: I'm liking the fandom idea that Fenrir will attempt to finish the job on Bill and half-Veela Fleur will blossom into her alter- ego, Scary Bird Woman, offing Fenrir once and for all (credit for general idea to John Granger, or at least I read part of this idea on his site http://www.hogwartsprofessor.com/home.php ). Betsy hp: > Ron Weasley: He's the Weasley we know the best, and we saw plenty > of him in HBP. Frankly, I didn't see any hints of suspicious > behaviour so I feel pretty good about giving Ron a pass. Jen: Too depressing, even for JKR. Maybe the girl, but not the best friend. Betsyhp: > Fred Weasley: He killed a small furry animal by bludgeoning it to > death (shades of young Tom Riddle?). And he very nearly killed a > classmate with no signs of remorse. He's the more ends driven > twin and seemed fine with a little blackmail. Would he be willing > to go further in order to ensure his success? > > George Weasley: He also nearly killed a classmate and showed no > signs of remorse. He's the more personable twin, but does that > suggest a more manipulative mind? > > At this point, I'm leaning more towards the twins. Isn't it > strange that their U-No-Poo signs have gone unremarked on by the > Death Eaters terrorizing Diagon Alley? It could be both of them, > but I think it'd be more bang-y if it was just one. Jen: The U-No-Poo signs are a little odd, as well as the Peruvian darkness powder being involved in the DE break-in. Wheezes seems to be one of the few fully-functioning businesses in Diagon Alley at the moment, and the twins said their products are helping the Ministry. So why haven't they been targeted by the DE's? Hmmm. I'm going to chalk it up to greed and say they are paying off the DE mafioso patrolling Diagon Alley, but nothing more than that. Jen From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Sep 3 01:15:41 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 18:15:41 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore and Harry WAS: Re: Apologies and responsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c5b025$01ccba80$0a3a79a5@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 139402 As to whether it was their best course of action, well, they did need to save Ginny ASAP and they had nobody to go to. Actually, they DID try to approach Lockhart first, as DADA teacher, so I'd say that yes they did everything they could. JMO of course, Alla Sherry Now: let's also remember that the boys were only 12 at this point. I don't think we can expect a whole lot of mature thinking and wise understanding from them at that age. Ginny had been kidnapped, and they could and did help. any other course of action would have resulted in her death. this is, after all, a fantasy, and the hero is supposed to be unconventional and act on his own without the help of adults. Sherry From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 01:24:08 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 18:24:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] ACID POPS vs LOLLIPOPS (was:Re: Whom does Snape REALLY love?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050903012408.55529.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139403 > >>Neri: >> The fact he made it clear is important, but also the *way* he did >> it. I sincerely doubt that the grownup Sirius would ever shout to >> anyone in any situation "I, the Black Padfoot!" but somehow it is >> in character for grownup Snape. >Betsy Hp: >Oh, I think Sirius had his share of the Black taste for drama. I'm >betting he could have declaimed with the best of them. Sirius' bent was more for over-the-top declarations of personal loyalty and dedication (a trait he shares with cousin Bellatrix, btw; it would be interesting to find out that a distant ancestor was an actor or actress). His roar at Pettigrew in the Shrieking Shack in POA: "Then you should have died [for James et al] as we would have died for you!" struck me at the time as the kind of grandiose statement that adolescents make. It's matched by Bellatrix's declarations in HBP Chapter 2 (sorry, had to return book to library so can't quote) about going to Azkaban and suffering there for her loyalty, only to be punctured by Snape's withering "you weren't much use to him (LV) there but the gesture was undoubtedly fine." Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 3 01:25:59 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 01:25:59 -0000 Subject: Draco's culpability (Was: My doubts about Snape being Evil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139404 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > Yeah, and let me add that the interviews really don't count for me. > For one thing, they can be interperted in many different ways. (ie > Draco was *preparing* himself to become a Death Eater by shutting > down compassion, however once he got on the road to becoming one he > realized he couldn't shut his compassion down so completely.) For > another, if she can't say it in the books, than she ain't saying it. Marianne: Well, then how do you explain Draco's total lack of concern about the opal necklace and the poisoned mead? IMO, we saw no evidence of Draco's compassion about the two students who were the unwitting recipients of those little gifts. Yes, he couldn't kill DD when push came to shove on the tower, but whatever happened to Katie and Ron didn't seem to make Draco pause for even a moment to reconsider his position. To me, Draco didn't give a fig who might have died on the way to his killing of Dumbledore. They were all collateral damage, which seems to fit in quite nicely with the DE code of conduct. IMO, JKR *has* said it in the books - Draco is quite capable of killing anyone who gets in his way, as long as he doesn't have to actually look at them while he kills them. OTOH, he doesn't have the balls to actually kill someone face-to-face, so maybe he really isn't quality DE material. Marianne From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 01:34:30 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 18:34:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's character development In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050903013430.61703.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139405 --- Steve wrote: > Your right; the latest book did a lot to convey information > regarding the plot and character/story background, Harry did not > advance much as a wizard. If anything, I thought he slid backwards > a bit. > [SNIP] > Of course, I can't blame it all on the adults, although it is their > responsibility; Harry is very lazy about his practice. If it had > been me, I would be researching Dark Arts and Anti-Dark Arts with > every free minute of time. He could practice dueling... I think JKR gave us a bit of a foretaste of Harry's development as a wizard in the cave scene when he's watching Dumbledore examine the wall and thinks something like "Harry had long ago learned that smokes and bangs didn't mean magical strength". And I thought, "He did? When?" I thought it was JKR foreshadowing Harry's growth but frankly I found it clumsy. We never read about Harry ruminating on magic or inventing spells or even thinking of how to go about inventing spells if he wanted to. He's actually a pretty passive wizard. His big thing is to yell "Protego!" which just throws up a shield to bounce an enemy's own spells back at them. People write about how he broke into Snape's mind during occlumency but in fact he didn't; he just threw up the shield and Snape in effect broke into his own mind with Harry being a witness. Harry spends more time reflecting on quidditch and his feelings about people a lot more than he goes in for abstract considerations of magic. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 00:08:11 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 00:08:11 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139406 Matt wrote: "Perhaps a lab report would explain the source for unconventional methods used in the experiment, but the potions exercises don't call for a report; they are purely practical. As I said in the prior post, it does bother me a bit that Harry doesn't disabuse Slughorn of the misconception that his potionmaking is intuitive, but what is being taught is the ability to successfully make the potion, not intuition." Del replies: What is being taught is the ability to successfully make a potion *according to a certain protocol*. Simply having the students make potions would be a waste of time and resources. Though the potions are what is used to grade the students, they are not what really matters. What matters is how good of a potion can the students make while following a particular method. It's the *skill* the students develop and demonstrate that matters, their ability to produce a certain result under certain circumstances - including the method they are given. So using another method makes the whole exercise worthless. Slughorn asked his students to turn to page X and to prepare Potion Y. The point wasn't to try and find a way to circumvent the protocol. The point was to see how good a Potion Y the students were able to do while following that particular protocol. If they skipped the designated protocol and jumped straight to a better one, then there would be no point at all in grading them. Let me compare this to the first DADA lesson. In that lesson, they worked on practicing silent magic. They didn't learn any new spell, they just had to practice those spells silently. Did it work? No, for most of them. Would it have been more efficient if they had used the spells out loud? Of course! But that wasn't the point. The point was to see how well they could do silently. It wasn't the results that mattered, it was the skill that was being developed, even though that skill was demonstrated by the results. Matt wrote: "It's that last point that I actually find most provocative in thinking about Harry's use of the HBP book. Do the "talented" potionmakers in the class actually understand what they are doing, or are they simply following instructions? Does Harry -- presented with the contrast between the textbook instructions and Snape's -- understand things any better than the rest of the class, or is he, too, simply following instructions? I'm not a scientist, but I am a cook, and I tend to assume that there is some talent, some feel, some art involved in potionmaking, as there is in cooking, but I fear that none of the students we see has really picked this up. (Certainly not Hermione, who insists on slavishly following the recipe.) One would think the concept would be attractive to Harry, who tends to perform much better at instinctive/reactive tasks (flying, sports, duelling) than at book learning. " Del replies: Your use of the word "slavishly" to describe Hermione indicates to me that you missed the entire point of the Potions lessons. That point was to teach the kids precisely what you've just described: how potion-making works. The ultimate point was *not* to have them make perfect potions, even though that was what they were graded on. It was to have the kids understand the interactions between the different ingredients and the different moves. By following the book's instructions precisely, Hermione worked on doing exactly that. She studied the theory on one hand, and she applied it on the other hand, thus learning the innards of potion-making. The fact that she is indeed learning the art of potion-making is demonstrated during the antidote lesson. She appears to be the only one who actually knows what she's doing, and that's because she understands the principles of potion-making. Harry, on the other hand, doesn't understand anything to potion-making. He's just following another book's instructions, but he doesn't gather anything from it. And when the antidote lesson comes, he is completely at a loss, because he doesn't understand anything. You say you like to cook. So let me explain that in cooking terms. let's say the kids have this sauce to make. The original recipe tells them to use yellow onions, sour cream and two different kinds of herbs, and to cook the sauce at high temperature for a short time. Hermione has already studied the properties of each of the ingredients used, and she's about to learn and remember what happens when you mix them and when you cook them in a certain way. Harry, on the other hand, has this alternate recipe that tells him to use white onions and to add butter and a third herb, and to cook the sauce on low temperature first before turning the temp to high. As a result, he gets a much creamier and tastier sauce than Hermione. But the problem is that he doesn't know *why*. He can't identify the different ingredients when tasting the two sauces, and so can't appreciate how the alternate and additional ingredients come into play. He also doesn't understand what cooking does to a sauce, and so is unable to appreciate why his own cooking was better than Hermione's. So now let me ask you: who do you think is the better student? Harry's sauce might be better, but it's Hermione's knowledge that has progressed. About rewarding creativity, now. Slughorn doesn't reward Harry's creativity for itself: he rewards it because it worked! When Ernie tried to create his own original potion, Slughorn did *not* congratulate him for trying, and he didn't discuss things over with Ernie, to help him figure out what went wrong. So it's not the creativity in itself that Slughorn is after. What he's rewarding is the fact that Harry supposedly took a bet and won. What he thinks happened is that Harry thought "hum! I think if I do this or that, the potion might come off better", and he dared trying it even though that could ruin the potion entirely. But that's not at all what happened. When Harry decided to try the HBP corrections, it's because his potion was not doing well already. It was *not* a case of getting a passable potion by following the official instructions or trying to get a better potion by following the modifications at the risk of ruining the potion altogether. It was not a bet, Harry did not take any risk because his potions were not going to be wonderful anyway. I can accept that Harry took a small risk the first time or two times he tried the HBP modifications, but after that it wasn't a risk anymore. And yet he kept being praised as though he had taken a risk and won his bet. Added to the fact that he never once understood *why* the modifications made the potions better (he couldn't, since he didn't even understand what was supposed to go on in the original method!), that does leave me pretty disgusted at the way he kept using the HBP ameliorations to get great grades. It was dishonest. He knew he didn't understand anything to potion-making, so he should have stuck to the original method, so that he could be fairly graded against his classmates. Using better recipes with the *only* intention of fooling his teacher and getting praises and great grades was deliberate cheating. JMO, of course. Del From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 01:38:42 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 01:38:42 -0000 Subject: Sirius' declaration of loyalty in the Shrieking Shack WASACID POPS vs LOLLIPOPS In-Reply-To: <20050903012408.55529.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139407 Magda: > Sirius' bent was more for over-the-top declarations of personal > loyalty and dedication (a trait he shares with cousin Bellatrix, btw; > it would be interesting to find out that a distant ancestor was an > actor or actress). His roar at Pettigrew in the Shrieking Shack in > POA: "Then you should have died [for James et al] as we would have > died for you!" struck me at the time as the kind of grandiose > statement that adolescents make. Alla: I really like that JKR confirmed that Sirius' words were not empty words ( not that I doubted him :-)) and he would have done it. "JKR: Obviously I imagine it in the context of a very highly charged situation. God forbid ? I hope that in the general run of things, an 8- year-old would not be required to die for anyone, but we're talking here about a fully grown man who was in, what I consider to be, a war situation. This was a full-fledged war situation. I think the question really is do you, as readers, believe that Sirius would have died? Because Sirius is saying that. ES: Oh, absolutely. MA: Yeah. JKR: Right, well, that's what I believed. Sirius would have done it. He, with all his faults and flaws, he has this profound sense of honor, ultimately, and he would rather have died honorably, as he would see it, than live with the dishonor and shame of knowing that he sent those three people to their deaths, those three people that he loved beyond any others, because like Harry he is a displaced person without family. " - July 16, 2005 Interview. Alla. From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 3 01:41:08 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 01:41:08 -0000 Subject: ACID POPS vs LOLLIPOPS (was:Re: Whom does Snape REALLY love?) In-Reply-To: <20050903012408.55529.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139408 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > Sirius' bent was more for over-the-top declarations of personal > loyalty and dedication (a trait he shares with cousin Bellatrix, btw; > it would be interesting to find out that a distant ancestor was an > actor or actress). His roar at Pettigrew in the Shrieking Shack in > POA: "Then you should have died [for James et al] as we would have > died for you!" struck me at the time as the kind of grandiose > statement that adolescents make. It's matched by Bellatrix's > declarations in HBP Chapter 2 (sorry, had to return book to library > so can't quote) about going to Azkaban and suffering there for her > loyalty, only to be punctured by Snape's withering "you weren't much > use to him (LV) there but the gesture was undoubtedly fine." Marianne: Well, yes, perhaps Sirius' delivery in the Shrieking Shack was over the top. But, JKR evidently meant this to be taken exactly at face value, judging by the recent TLC/Mugglenet interview. Maybe we should start of list of lines spoken by characters that make us cringe. It just occured to me that Snape's comment to Bella mirrors Molly's comment to Sirius in OoP where she more or less tells him he's a rotten godfather because he's been in Azkaban for the last twelve years. Marianne, who would have liked JKR to provide us with a visit to Azkaban when the Dementors were in charge From lorelei3dg at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 01:50:43 2005 From: lorelei3dg at yahoo.com (lorelei3dg) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 01:50:43 -0000 Subject: Missing Horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139409 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jiloppy1" wrote: > Does anyone else think that the missing Horcrux could have been taken > and destroyed by Sirius brother? The initials are the same. Remember > Sirius tells Harry that Voldemore killed his brother himself. > > Jiloppy. There has been a lot of discussion here regarding the initials, with most conclusions both here and elsewhere (including the Harry Potter Lexicon, which JKR herself has acknowledged as a reputable source of HP info) that RAB is indeed Regulus Black. As far as LV personally killing Regulus, Sirius actually said the opposite in OOtP (US hardcover, page 112): "No, he was murdered by Voldemort. Or on Voldemort's orders, more likely, I doubt Regulus was ever important enough to be killed by Voldemort in person." From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Sep 3 02:02:44 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 19:02:44 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Academic dishonesty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c5b02b$942b5fc0$0a3a79a5@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 139410 Del replies: What is being taught is the ability to successfully make a potion *according to a certain protocol*. Simply having the students make potions would be a waste of time and resources. Though the potions are what is used to grade the students, they are not what really matters. What matters is how good of a potion can the students make while following a particular method. It's the *skill* the students develop and demonstrate that matters, their ability to produce a certain result under certain circumstances - including the method they are given. So using another method makes the whole exercise worthless. Sherry now: I disagree. In fact, I was quite shocked to find that people here considered Harry's use of the handwritten notes in his text book to be cheating. To me, the results were what mattered. Long ago, in order to get some rehab services, I had to undergo an evaluation of my daily living skills as a blind person. I went to a four week program, where i had to be tested on my mobility, cooking, cleaning and various other daily tasks. It was a joke; I was in my mid 20's and had learned all these things in childhood. I'd lived on my own since 18 and taken care of my own self. Anyway, this one teacher, who was evaluating my cooking skills discovered that I like to make bread. I'm an excellent cook, and I rarely take a recipe and follow it exactly. instead, I usually add a pinch of this or that to make it better. This teacher got very upset with me, because i don't do things in some prescribed manner of how blind people are supposed to do things. I never did understand it. My stepmother taught me how to cook and I've never poisoned anyone. He told my rehab counselor that i didn't cook properly because i didn't measure things in the prescribed manner. Possibly he was referring to the fact that I didn't measure anything when I made bread, or that I don't take my measuring cups and pour things over a sink or bowl in case I spill. Being blind doesn't make me automatically spill things, but there are some pretty strange things written out there by sighted people about how blind people ought to do things. So, the rehab counselor asked the teacher, did the things Sherry prepared come out properly? Yes, he said. Well, then, she replied, it doesn't matter how she did it. The results are what matters. So, that's how I took the scenes with Harry doing the potions in HBP. i was more disturbed by the hold the book seemed to gain on him and truly horrified when he used that spell on Draco. The potions didn't bother me at all. He got the correct results. There's no way that Snape's method of teaching, waving a wand and directions being written on a board teaches the students anything more about the intricacies of potion making than Harry following the HBP book did. Hermione was just suffering from sour grapes for being beaten, for once in her life, and by someone she considers intellectually inferior to herself. Just my opinion. sherry From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 02:03:22 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 19:03:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius' declaration of loyalty in the Shrieking Shack WASACID POPS vs LOLLIPOPS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050903020322.152.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139411 > Magda: > > His roar at Pettigrew in the Shrieking Shack in > POA: "Then you should have died [for James et al] as we would > have died for you!" struck me at the time as the kind of grandiose > statement that adolescents make. > > > > Alla: > > I really like that JKR confirmed that Sirius' words were not empty > words ( not that I doubted him :-)) and he would have done it. Of course they weren't empty; he was quite sincere (as was Bellatrix regarding her loyalty to Voldemort). Sirius was always sincere. But they were hokey, and cheesy, and right up there with signing oaths in blood by candlelight. It's an adolescent's view of how to make a really impressive declaration. Magda (who thinks Sirius was dumb not for making the declaration but for expecting that Pettigrew shared the sentiment) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 02:25:51 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 02:25:51 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139412 Del wrote: > What is being taught is the ability to successfully make a potion *according to a certain protocol*. Simply having the students make potions would be a waste of time and resources. Though the potions are what is used to grade the students, they are not what really matters. What matters is how good of a potion can the students make while following a particular method. It's the *skill* the students develop and demonstrate that matters, their ability to produce a certain result under certain circumstances - including the method they are given. So using another method makes the whole exercise worthless. > The ultimate point was *not* to have them make perfect potions, even though that was what they were graded on. It was to have the kids understand the interactions between the different ingredients and the different moves. > > By following the book's instructions precisely, Hermione worked on> doing exactly that. She studied the theory on one hand, and she applied it on the other hand, thus learning the innards of potion-making. The fact that she is indeed learning the art of potion-making is demonstrated during the antidote lesson. She appears to be the only one who actually knows what she's doing, and that's because she understands the principles of potion-making. > > Harry, on the other hand, doesn't understand anything to potion-making. He's just following another book's instructions, but he doesn't gather anything from it. And when the antidote lesson comes, he is completely at a loss, because he doesn't understand anything. > > When Harry decided to try the HBP corrections, it's because his potion was not doing well already. It was *not* a case of getting a passable potion by following the official instructions or trying to get a better potion by following the modifications at the risk of ruining the potion altogether. It was not a bet, Harry did not take any risk because his potions were not going to be wonderful anyway. I can accept that Harry took a small risk the first time or two times he > tried the HBP modifications, but after that it wasn't a risk anymore. And yet he kept being praised as though he had taken a risk and won his bet. > > Added to the fact that he never once understood *why* the > modifications made the potions better (he couldn't, since he didn't > even understand what was supposed to go on in the original method!), > that does leave me pretty disgusted at the way he kept using the HBP > ameliorations to get great grades. It was dishonest. He knew he didn't > understand anything to potion-making, so he should have stuck to the > original method, so that he could be fairly graded against his > classmates. Using better recipes with the *only* intention of fooling > his teacher and getting praises and great grades was deliberate cheating. Carol responds: Excellent post, Del. I want to add one additional point. Young Severus Snape deserved the highest possible marks in Potions because he understood both the theory behind potion-making (which Hermione is learning but Harry isn't) and how to apply it successfully (which Hermione may be on her way to learning but Harry is not). If he were to continue in this vein for another year and then take his Potions NEWT, his ignorance of potion-making and the principles behind it would be exposed, along with his less than honest method of acquiring those marks. He has learned nothing. There is no possible way he could reproduce those results (unless you count the bezoar) on his own. He is being rewarded for Severus Snape's knowledge and creativity, not his own. To argue that he deserves the same high marks as the person who invented the improved potions makes no sense at all. It's like saying that Lockhart deserves credit for writing his textbooks. The only difference is that Harry hasn't modified anyone's memory in order to claim their ideas as his own. Even Harry knows that what he's doing is wrong or he wouldn't have changed the cover on his borrowed textbook and kept it, disguised as the new one, rather than turning it in to Slughorn. Nor would he have hidden it from Snape and given him "Roonil Wazlib's" book, pretending it was his own. He's cheating *and* lying, and he knows it. Otherwise he would have argued with Snape and produced the book he had actually been using. (And wouldn't *that* have been an interesting moment!) The only person who deserved an O (or the classroom equivalent) for those potions is the person who invented the improvements, young Severus Snape. Carol From schumar1999 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 03:37:19 2005 From: schumar1999 at yahoo.com (Marianne S.) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 03:37:19 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty In-Reply-To: <000601c5b02b$942b5fc0$0a3a79a5@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139413 Sherry: There's no way that Snape's method of teaching, waving a wand and directions being written on a board teaches the students anything more about the intricacies of potion making than Harry following the HBP book did. Hermione was just suffering from sour grapes for being beaten, for once in her life, and by someone she considers intellectually inferior to herself. Marianne S: As a teacher, I am disturbed by the conclusions I draw from Harry's success with the HBP book. First, it seems very obvious to me that the potion directions Snape put on the board when he taught were better than the students would have seen in any textbook, which is why they were not in a textbook. Had Snape not let his prejudice and hate for James color the way he treated Harry, Harry surely would have been able to mix potions successfully following Professor Snape's directions. We saw an example of this after Snape's Worst Memory in OotP where Harry made a perfect potion when he wasn't being so stressed and on edge because of Snape's constant attacks (of course the actions of Draco and Hermione prevented him from getting his earned mark). If Harry had been free of Snape's attacks, he may have been as successful and learned as much as Hermione did. Second, it doesn't seem like Snape was the best teacher. He gave the students great information, he told them how to do things, but he criticized and belittled students for their mistakes rather than having them understand the errors. When students were successful, there is no evidence that Snape facilitated their ability to understand why certain ingredients worked etc. Had Snape really and fully taught Hermione everything he could, rather than just showing her HOW to make potions while not encouraging her understanding, she probably would have done much better in Slughorn's class. Perhaps, though, Snape's methods were due to impending O.W.L.s; his teaching could have been the greatest Academic Dishonesty of all. Maybe the ministry had "No Wizard Left Behind" legislation (like the American "No Child Left Behind" unfunded mandate that forces many schools to spend all their time and resources preparing for high stakes testing) that forced potentially talented potions masters like Snape to teach to the test instead of instilling a deep understanding of content. Not that I'm excusing his treatment of Harry and other Gryffindors, but even the Slytherins weren't doing well in 6th year Potions now that Snape was no longer their teacher. Marianne S. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 04:00:33 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 04:00:33 -0000 Subject: Sirius' declaration of loyalty in the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: <20050903020322.152.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139414 Magda: > Of course they weren't empty; he was quite sincere (as was Bellatrix > regarding her loyalty to Voldemort). Sirius was always sincere. > > But they were hokey, and cheesy, and right up there with signing > oaths in blood by candlelight. It's an adolescent's view of how to > make a really impressive declaration. Alla: This is the moment where I need clarification. You agree that Sirius was sincere, right? He would had been died for Peter, if asked. Could you tell me what are you objecting to? Just to the wording? Are you saying that this was simply the wrong moment to say it, if it is so, then I would say that it simply needed to be said for both plot development and character development And honestly I find Sirius attitude towards friendship to be the one which makes whole lot of sense to me, especially considering the experiences I had while growing up. Since in Soviet Union schools kids would stay basically with the same group of people for at least eight years of schooling and with many of those people for ten years of schooling ( you take the same subjects with same thirty or fourty people every day), you used to form some very tight friendships, many of them literally for life. It was a bit harder for jewish kids to form such tight friendships, since one would be not very inclined to be friends with people who throw racial slurs at you, but we managed to find close friends too. What am I getting at? I am not sure, I guess I am just saying that if adolescent way is to stay loyal to your friends, then at my age " my inner adolescent" is pretty much alive. > > Magda (who thinks Sirius was dumb not for making the declaration but > for expecting that Pettigrew shared the sentiment) Alla: Hmmm, post HBP, I would argue that this declaration of Sirius may come back with the vengeance in book 7. Consider - the sincerity of Sirius declaration may hint at the fact that Marauders' friendship WAS genuine in many aspects despite people putting so much emphasis on James and Sirius remarks towards Peter in pensieve scene. I suspect that was their way to make jokes and that they did like Peter as a friends,even if they may consider his magical skills to be a bit weaker than theirs. Are you completely discarding the idea that Peter may have regrets sometimes that he abandoned the genuine friendship and sold his friends to Voldemort? Maybe we will learn that to some extent Peter did share the sentiment of Sirius' declaration and that is why he would act the way I am suspecting he may in book 7. JMO, Alla, who is quite annoyed with her abysmal math skills, but who is now pretty sure that in her time zone she is starting the new day and new three posts. Hopefully... From mt3t3l1 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 04:13:07 2005 From: mt3t3l1 at yahoo.com (mt3t3l1) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 04:13:07 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty In-Reply-To: <000601c5b02b$942b5fc0$0a3a79a5@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139415 I'm not a Potions master, but I do have a graduate degree in Biochemistry, a field of study which is a little bit like Potions. And I've had the chance to work my way through quite a few protocols (the scientific equivalents of Potions recipes). Del said: It's the *skill* the students develop and demonstrate that matters, their ability to produce a certain result under certain circumstances -including the method they are given. So using another method makes the whole exercise worthless. Sherry said: The results are what matters. I have to agree with Sherry. When a biochemists are given a protocol (say, to do something like perform a Western blot) the natural tendency is to look for ways to improve on the protocol. In a large lab, the ideas for improvements could come from the newest graduate student all the way up to the head of the lab. In no case is the person making the suggestion ever given credit for doing so. The suggestion is simply tried, recorded into the lab notebook, and if it turns out well, adopted as a modification to the previous protocol. Eventually there will be so many modifications that the original protocol may be practically unrecognizable. But no one will receive any acknowledgment for their contributions along the way. Why? The results are what matters. Because of this, papers dealing with the development of a particular procedure are not highly regarded in the scientific community. They are often helpful; they may provide necessary steps along the road to advancing scientific knowledge; but what counts in science is the validity of the result, not the particular technique that is used to reach it. In the Wizarding World, values may be different. I do remember that Snape was angry when Hermione helped Neville fix a potion that Snape was expecting to use to kill Trevor the toad. But in the Scientific World, Neville would only have gotten into trouble if he had taken some of Hermione's potion and claimed that it was his own. Taking Hermione's advice, or following the scribblings that somebody wrote in the margins of the protocol would not be objectionable in any way as long as the potion turned out correctly. Merrylinks From maliksthong at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 05:57:33 2005 From: maliksthong at yahoo.com (Chys Lattes) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 05:57:33 -0000 Subject: The Opposite of a Horcrux- another idea In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139416 > Christina: > > This is where I start to get hesitant about the theory. Obviously, > since the Opposite-Horcrux creation would require Lily's death, the > spell in question must have been cast before her death occurred. Now > we know that Lily had talent in charms, but I can't help but think > back to a quote JKR gave during the MuggleNet/TLC interview: > > ---- > MA: Did she [Lily] know anything about the possible effect of standing > in front of Harry? > > JKR: No - because as I've tried to make clear in the series, it never > happened before. No one ever survived before. And no one, therefore, > knew that could happen. > ---- > > Now, I suppose that if JKR did use the Opposite-Horcrux idea, she > could always defend her statement by saying that since Lily was the > first person to ever try to make an Opposite-Horcrux, she didn't > *know* for sure it would work and therefore didn't *know* for sure > that Harry would survive the AK. However, she seems to be giving a > very clear and straightforward answer (which doesn't happen often), so > it makes me think that this isn't the route she's on. Of course, like > I said before, I still can't think up a scenario concerning Lily's > sacrifice that makes sense in the context of what we've heard in the > books and interviews, so I'm sure things will get fudged a bit. > Chys: It's still plausible, I think, since there's the possibility that she didn't know it would happen that way, and wasn't consciously trying it. Maybe she was just a desperate mother trying something on the spur of the moment or perhaps she was simply a desperate mother standing between her son and death. Then again, I also said that Harry could be a horcrux accidentally because of a spell that involved using his death to create one, although after listening in on many posts I am starting to believe that that's not the case. (Though I'll admit that was the first thing I jumped on.) The canon sounded to me like LV would have had to have started the horcrux creating process before he killed Harry to complete it- in order to harness the splitting of his soul, so perhaps he had done this and Lily's sacrifice got in the way, creating the opposite of what it was supposed to be, which has never happened before in known history? (So instead of Harry dying for LV to make a horcrux as DD had explained was a possibility, Harry lived and became something of the opposite because of measures that were already taken by LV, and because of the interference of Lily's sacrifice!) About what Del said on the opposite of a horcrux being taboo at Hogwarts, there's also the possibility people didn't know it existed. Or it had been in another form, for another use, and that's why it's related to 'love magic' which is what (I believe DD?) meant by some ancient magic that Lily knew. Then again, if it were mentioned at Hogwarts, wouldn't it be something so mundane and simple and insignificant that no one noticed it, like Tom may have passed it by because perhaps it was an everyday thing and considered weak? (Love is the answer! *lol*) I agreee with what Del said about Harry's eyes, that's quite a good possibility since an infants eyes do change and potentially Sirius may have simply concluded that he hadn't noticed the change in his godson's eyes, after seeing him after so many years in Azkaban. Or maybe it's not something that people think about, maybe they assumed that his eyes simply changed to green naturally. Maybe we should ask JKR. *though I doubt we'd get an answer for a few years.* *off to read the other posts about an opposite of a horcrux now...* Chys From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Sep 3 06:41:49 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 06:41:49 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Harry WAS: Re: Apologies and responsibility In-Reply-To: <000501c5b025$01ccba80$0a3a79a5@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139417 > Lady Indigo said: > I meant approaching someone more like Dumbledore, who they knew > they could trust and who could give them advice on how to best > present this to the Ministry so they'd be believed. Valky: Hi can I just jump in here and reply to this. I have been enjoying your spirited and thoughtful posts Lady Indigo, a whole lot. So I am a bit sorry to say I think that you might be against the wall on this point about Harry's actions at the end of COS. To answer this question. I'll remind you that Lucius was both in charge of the Administration of Hogwarts at this time and behind the attack on Hogwarts. Harry and Ron had no chance of reaching someone with authority to act gainst Lucius' wishes, and Lucius was clearly on the side of the Heir of Slytherin here, even at the expense of Ginny. McGonagall and Snape were equally tied by this constraint on reaching help from Dumbledore. Harry's intuition served him particularly well in this moment, he was the only one with access to the Chamber /and/ to help from Dumbledore. He simply had to do it or nobody could. I realise you are also saying he could have sought help from a more competent teacher, but I think that to his mind, Snape and MacGonagall where the options and neither makes themselves particularly approachable. Lady Indigo: > So you honestly think that, barring the need > to save Ginny as soon as possible, their best course of action was > to take justice into their own hands, and throw Lockhart down in the > Chamber with them when they knew that he was incompetent and could > easily be killed? Valky: I don't think that they "knew" he was incompetent. Sherry and Alla make the right points I think in citing Harry and Rons age and the fact that Lockhart was the DADA teacher. I would say that they certinly suspected he was incompetent, but as junior learners it is likely that they stopped short of thinking that they had any claim to knowing he was. I think they hoped, and I also think that they intuitively thought that they hoped in vain, that Lockhart would prove himself as good as the word in his books. When they got to the chamber Lockhart attacked them, I am sure they hoped for better from him than that. IMHO, it was the best course of action, in the sense that it can be said intuitive magic helped Harry to decide it. In the sense of practicality in foresight, it seems like a ridiculous course of action, I agree, but the practicality in retrospect is very solid. I think I explained that as I meant it. :S Valky :D From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 08:51:22 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 08:51:22 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty (was "Apologies and responsibility") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139418 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lealess" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Matt" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Matt" wrote: > > > > As I said in the prior post, it does bother me a bit that Harry > > doesn't disabuse Slughorn of the misconception that his > > potionmaking is intuitive, but what is being taught is the ability > > to successfully make the potion, not intuition. > > > > > > -- Matt > lealess: > > The problem I have with Harry's use of the notations: he didn't do > the work (research, or even finding and buying cheat sheets) to get > the notations on his own and yet he is passing off the improved > potions he gets as his own innovations. ...edited... > > Harry doesn't take using the notes seriously because he is not going > to pursue a career in potions, he's used to dancing on the edge of > propriety, and he's used to having extra help. ...edited... > > Anyway, it seems like a kind of cheating, though perhaps not > technically -- more of a moral failure, to me. It's just > not "upstanding." > > lealess bboyminn: Let's change the scenrio slightly. Let's say that Harry found a nice detailed Potions book at the bookstore or in the library, and brought that to class because he felt it was a more up-to-date and more accurate referecence than a 50 year old text book. Would you still have the same view of his cheating, even if you don't consider it /technically/ cheating? I think probably not. As I pointed out, it would be more than fair for a student to bring additional reference information into class to perform a Physics or Chemistry experiment and I think that same thing can be applied to Potions, as long as, he isn't required to write up the experiment afterwards. Then, as I already pointed out, he has some obligation to cite additional reference material. But not doing so, is merely an oversight, it hardly constitutes cheating or plagiarism. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sat Sep 3 09:50:54 2005 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 05:50:54 -0400 Subject: Harry's character development Message-ID: <006601c5b06c$fbb3ac60$7cc2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 139419 Magda >>I think JKR gave us a bit of a foretaste of Harry's development as a wizard in the cave scene when he's watching Dumbledore examine the wall and thinks something like "Harry had long ago learned that smokes and bangs didn't mean magical strength". And I thought, "He did? When?" CathyD: You must have broken into my mind, I had the same thought. I thought I must surely have missed something when I was reading the other books, and after I finished HBP went for a re-read of the whole series to see if I could find his 'aha' moment but I guess I missed it again. >>I thought it was JKR foreshadowing Harry's growth but frankly I found it clumsy. We never read about Harry ruminating on magic or inventing spells or even thinking of how to go about inventing spells if he wanted to. He's actually a pretty passive wizard. >>His big thing is to yell "Protego!" which just throws up a shield to bounce an enemy's own spells back at them. People write about how he broke into Snape's mind during occlumency but in fact he didn't; he just threw up the shield and Snape in effect broke into his own mind with Harry being a witness. >>Harry spends more time reflecting on quidditch and his feelings about people a lot more than he goes in for abstract considerations of magic. CathyD: Oh, I so agree with you Magda. There's one point in HBP that Dumbledore tells Harry that Riddle found out more of the magic within the castle than any other student (something like that, sorry my book isn't handy). I thought, well, certainly more than Harry who's found out nothing. Yes, he got into the CoS but that wasn't done on his own. Dobby told him about the Room of Requirement. Fred and George handed him the Marauders' Map and told him how to use it or he'd never have found any of the secret passages out of the school. I have days when I'm surprised the kid can find his way to the Quidditch pitch without signposts. Well, no, maybe not the Quidditch pitch .... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sat Sep 3 09:53:22 2005 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 05:53:22 -0400 Subject: Snape, Kreacher and the death of sirius Message-ID: <006b01c5b06d$52966900$7cc2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 139420 Finwitch >>I just wished that Lupin would have recalled the MOON and well - er - transfigured Snape into a rat-cage, sent the kids with the rat back to the castle and stayed in the shack, but no deal. What was the *matter* with Lupin in particular? I understand that Sirius couldn't keep much track of time but Remus Lupin forgetting it's full Moon??? I'm inclined to see a *possible* blame Snape on that - he may have cast a non-verbal obliviate on Lupin, put something on the potion or maybe this was some sort of side-effect he never told Lupin about, but, of course, no proof on that... CathyD: Not being a big fan of werewolf tales, I somehow got it into my head that werewolves in other stories transformed whether they *saw* the moon or not. However, our dear Lupin only transforms when a cloud shifted to reveal the moon. I've wondered, since PoA, the necessity of a tunnel, the Shrieking Shack, and the Whomping Willow if all that was needed was to prevent Remus from seeing the moon. They could have shut him in a broom cupboard for the night instead. Finwitch >>Let's not forget the portrait of Bellatrix Kreacher had in the kitchen... no need to go to Malfoys when there's that portrait... Dumbledore's not the only one who can use portraits as messengers, you know... CathyD: Wasn't a portrait it was a picture in a silver frame with the glass broken. "...and he had also managed to retreive the silver-framed family photographs that Sirius had thrown away over the summer. Their glass might be shattered, but still the little black-and-white people inside them peered up at him haughtily, including -- he felt a little jolt in his stomach -- the dark, heavy lidded woman whose trial he had witnessed in Dumbledore's Pensive: Bellatrix Lestrange." [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Sep 3 10:06:16 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 10:06:16 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty (was "Apologies and responsibility") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139421 > bboyminn: > it would be more than fair for > a student to bring additional reference information into class to > perform a Physics or Chemistry experiment and I think that same thing > can be applied to Potions, as long as, he isn't required to write up > the experiment afterwards. Then, as I already pointed out, he has some > obligation to cite additional reference material. But not doing so, is > merely an oversight, it hardly constitutes cheating or plagiarism. > > Just a thought. > > Steve/bboyminn Valky: I wonder if I could add yet another angle of perspective to this interesting thread. :D I confess I rarely have a problem with Harry's rulebreaking, mostly because the WW society has IMO a real set of issues in terms of justice anyway, most of the laws and rules Harry (and all Wizardom) lives under are simply unreliable and the unfortunate mark of a damaged, crumbling and wartorn society. Besides I am Australian, that speaks for itself, at least to other Aussies . The state of things can only be made better by someone with the guts to fight for a fair go. Harry is usually acting upon his deepest sense of fairness, compassion and courage, so he's all right by me. That isn't the angle that I am proposing to be considered here, though. That would be the following. I submit that if we are comparing Potions practice to Chemistry practice then there is an important measure in the practice of Chemistry that we haven't looked at. In a practical Chemistry lesson, you are graded on certain aspects of your work. Two of these are your accuracy and precision, which as Merrylinks said earlier, are the important components of a practical outcome in Sciences, the results. Harry uses a set of instructions to carry out potion making, putting aside that it is a different set of instructions to the other children in the class, lets consider Harrys ability to follow those instructions, which is one of the major requirements in the Potions class, I think we have in canon. Harry may have separate notations to the other class members, however he still must translate those instructions into manual precision, and accurately manifest the written instructions into real life potion. Without these things, it is highly unlikely that any set of instructions would make any difference. If we are still yet comparing this with a chemistry prac then Harry's skills are most definitely in credit. The fact that Harry can recreate a perfect potion from these instructions, might not be such an insignificant deal. Consider. Why are the other students in the class all not at the precise same stage of the potion as each other? They are following the same instructions. Hence the reasoning that none of Harry's own skill is on display in his well made potions is to imply that everyone in the class was using a different set of instructions, and Ron was just making it up out of his head, lol. The fact is Harry is a highly skilled potions maker, Snapes notations did not control his hands his eyes and his ability to discern the stage of the potion using his own senses. Those things he did himself. I'd like to add another thought to this. I wonder if the Potion Recipes in Snapes textbook are the same recipes that he would have been casting onto his blackboard for the class to follow, had he been a NEWT potions master. If it were the case, then it is possible that Hary's potions performance in HBP is actually representative of what he would always have been capable of with Snape lessons but no actual Snape in the room sabotaging him every few minutes. I think this might be a Theory, you know, even Hermione didn't do all so well as usual without Snape as her teacher, I noticed. Valky From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sat Sep 3 10:06:57 2005 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 06:06:57 -0400 Subject: Do portraits talk Message-ID: <007201c5b06f$389ae1a0$7cc2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 139422 Highlanderx54: > I may be wrong but when Sirius died the Black portrait in > Dumbledores office could not believe that the last Black was dead and > went through all the portraits to look for him. Also in the beginning > of the HBP the portrait told the minister that the MOM was coming. > Because of those two instances I thought maybe they could talk. Ceridwen: >>And, Phineas Nigellus also was offended that Mundungus was stealing Black family heirlooms. IIRC, he has also been known to snort at things or make some other incredulous noise, and make sarcastic comments, too. If this is PNB in pale memory, he must have been quite a character in life! CathyD: I agree! No wonder he was the least liked Headmaster at Hogwarts! One thing I did notice on a recent re-read of the whole series: Phineas is generally very quick to say something about Sirius. His poor taste in house guests, that he's Phineas' "worthless great-great grandson", etc, but during the interview between Harry and Dumbledore, with Sirius present, at the end of GoF, there is no word, no sniff, no nothing from dear Phineas. Yet that would have been a perfect opportunity for something, even a quelling "Yes, thank you Phineas" from Dumbledore, but I don't think there was a sound from any portrait in the office at that point, not even a snore. I guess I just found this a little odd when in OotP the portraits become so vocal. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 11:52:39 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 11:52:39 -0000 Subject: Dumbledores' Legilimency Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139423 I just thought of Aberforth, Albus and Aberforth's reading abilities being questioned by Albus -- the bartender who doesn't look at people - most of the customers hiding their face- - Well, what I thought was that Aberforth, like his brother, is a Legilimens, and was so since he was a child. However, he cannot control it - to him, it's automatic that if he looks people into eyes when greeting them or looks at person X when Person X is talking to him (as I believe some adults tell children to behave) he really looks at the *person*, really looks deep INTO the eyes - in other words, Legilimensing them. The result probably being told not to stare. Then Aberforth tells Albus: "I wish they'd make up their minds. They tell me to look at them, and when I do, they tell me not to. Can't please them no matter what I do..." He may have been at Hogwarts for a day, Legilimenced his teachers and quit after that. Finwitch From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 14:27:02 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 14:27:02 -0000 Subject: Sexy Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139424 Elyse: It has crossed my mind actually, and that only makes me find him more attractive not less. You see, he is not a pathetic loser who is desperate for any womans affections. He will not bind himself to a woman just because *she* loves him, he will do it if he considers her worthy of *his* love. I suspect he is a man who chooses his friends (if he has any) very carefully. If he does believe as Sirius did that "A man hath no greater duty than to lay down his life for his friends" , then he would make sure those friends were worth it. And if he applies this sort of discrimination for his friends, how is it possible for him to compromise in the choice of a life partner? He is without question an amazingly powerful wizard. I believe that intellect and emotions rule him equally. He is passionate about what he loves but he's also (as I think was a part of the Diana theory) too much of a thinker. I doubt you would find many wizard clever as him in a long days march and even fewer witches. He would want a partner who is strong, capable and who does not shirk from brutal truth or duty.He wasnt going to waste himself on a wishy washy woman with a silly Saviour!complex. vmonte responds: Actually Elyse, I think that there are many fans out there that think like you do. I do not, but your post has opened my eyes to how some fans think about Snape. If you actually look at the way Snape interacts with people you can pretty much get an idea about what kind of lover this guy would be. I mean, really, who would want this guy to love them? He's kind of mean and abusive don't you think? He treats everyone with contempt, and I really don't think he has any friends. From what I read he seemed to have killed the only person that was probably his friend. Snape also has a very obsessive compulsive nature. He is so fixated in his hatred of Harry/James that he is unable to let it go. How healthy can that be? And I'm not saying that Snape is incapable of having strong passions for a woman, I just wouldn't want to be around the woman that turned Snape down. He's scary folks! And the way he perceives the world is not based on reality--which is dangerous. I know that Snape has multitudes of fans, but I really don't think that JKR is writing books to tell children that they should not trust their gut instincts about people. Wouldn't it be like telling abused children to: 'Shut up, you don't know what you are talking about. Don't you realize that Professor Snape was a DE and still has sadistic tendencies? Of course it's in his nature to be abusive, just take it! Grow up already! Let Snape be a deeply horrible person. And what's wrong with you anyway? I'm not interested in hearing what you have to say about him! I don't care that he gave Voldemort information that led to your parents death--you ungrateful bast**d.' The reason that abuse tends to be under reported as a whole is because the victims are afraid that no one will listen to them or that they will not be believed. It's seems more in JKR's nature that she would be telling children that they should trust their instincts. Children really do know what this kind of teacher is all about. It's the adults that are clueless. Vivian From tigerpatronus at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 14:31:41 2005 From: tigerpatronus at yahoo.com (tigerpatronus) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 14:31:41 -0000 Subject: HBP contest -- FILK ANNOUNCING THE WINNER repost Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139425 To the tune of "Every Little Thing She Did Was Magic" by Sting/The Police. Though we all made our best guesses Some of our theories became messes Like the good ship Harmony. With Tiger yelping and Tiger roaring And twenty-five Minions scoring Over two hundred fifty entries. (But) Every little time Harry did magic "D." (doliesl) had predicted them all. Twists comedic and turns tragic "D." (doliesl) knew about them all. Though "Clio" came in close second Ten total Honorable Mentions were selected >From the slush. These entries were quite spot on So we must call all of them from now on Quite HP-ish: Chancie, Julia, and Mike Pachuta KittyKatAddict, and one (Pipes) Jamie. Hexicon and Hickengruendler Janelle and Susan (Siriusly Snapey) (But) Every little time Harry did magic "D"s entry came out on top By votes and by Ruthless Rubric With scores as high as Grawp. Let's all resolve to email (doliesl) "D." A thousand times a day And congratulate him or her In the new electronic way. But whenever s/he posts a note We must all remember to say: "D." is the Most HP Among Us Whether in posts or in TBAY. (Because) Every little time Harry did magic Tiger and the Minions were convinced That "D." must be very psychic Or s/he was the real Half-Blood Prince. To recap: The Winner: "D." (doliesl) Second Place: Clio Honorable Mentions (No particular order): Chancie Julia Mike Pachuta KittyKatAddict Jamie Pipes Hexicon Hickengruendler Janelle Siriusly Snapey Susan First attempt at filk. Please be kind. TK -- TigerPatronus From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Sat Sep 3 15:01:42 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 11:01:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sexy Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050903150142.91513.qmail@web53301.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139426 Elyse: It has crossed my mind actually, and that only makes me find him more attractive not less. vmonte responds: Actually Elyse, I think that there are many fans out there that think like you do. I do not, but your post has opened my eyes to how some fans think about Snape. Luckdragon now: I wonder how many people would truly find Snape as attractive had Alan Rickman not portrayed him in the movies. Now Alan is a very sexy man, and does not have a "hook nose" or look "greasy". Alan also has a very deep hypnotic voice and a nice physique. If a lesser known actor had represented Snape in a more accurate way I do not think we would be as enthralled with him in this way. Loking at canon there is nothing other than his intelligence that makes him appealing in any way. His movements have been likened to a bat or spider, he has pasty skin, beady black eyes, lank black greasy hair, he lip curls sneeringly when he speaks, he has spittle in the corners of his mouth, he only wears black clothing, he obviously has a mean disposition, gets off on other people's discomfort and I highly doubt his voice is as attractive as Rickman's. Has anyone seen the drawing Jo herself made of Snape as she imagined him. Not a pretty picture. --------------------------------- Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bob.oliver at cox.net Sat Sep 3 05:55:25 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 05:55:25 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139427 > Marianne S: > As a teacher, I am disturbed by the conclusions I draw from Harry's > success with the HBP book. > > First, it seems very obvious to me that the potion directions Snape > put on the board when he taught were better than the students > would have seen in any textbook, which is why they were not in a > textbook. Had Snape not let his prejudice and hate for James color > the way he treated Harry, Harry surely would have been able to mix > potions successfully following Professor Snape's directions. We saw > an example of this after Snape's Worst Memory in OotP where Harry > made a perfect potion when he wasn't being so stressed and on edge > because of Snape's constant attacks (of course the actions of Draco > and Hermione prevented him from getting his earned mark). If Harry > had been free of Snape's attacks, he may have been as successful and > learned as much as Hermione did. Lupinlore: True, and I think this is part of the irony of HBP. You can see it from several different angles, of course. Some have said that Harry might have learned from Snape had he only been willing to do so. I would say the message JKR is sending is more likely that Snape could have taught Harry had he been willing to do so. In some ways, I think that HBP is a deeply tragic book, just as is OOTP -- but the tragedy is different in each case. The tragedy of OOTP arises from what is, from the world that the characters actually face and the choices they actually make. The tragedy in HBP is more subtle, but still profound. HBP gives us a window into another, better world that might have been, if things had gone differently long ago. In that alternate reality the pureblood prejudice did not work its way so deep into the social fabric of the Wizarding World, Dumbledore was wiser in the way he dealt with a young Tom Riddle, and the Marauder's generation was not so riven with jealousy and hatred. In that world it is easy to imagine a healthier and happier Severus Snape, still sarcastic and cynical but without the cruel edge, growing very fond of a certain brash, energetic, dark-haired Gryffindor, and said Gryffindor finding that his favorite professor is not a passive, emotionally repressed werewolf but his dry-witted, irreverent potions master. Perhaps Dumbledore hoped that Occlumency would, among other things, allow some dim shadow of that better world to be salvaged. But the deep tragedy is that the better world is only a dream -- a dream that was rendered impossible years ago by prejudice, blunders, hatred, and death. > > Second, it doesn't seem like Snape was the best teacher. He gave the > students great information, he told them how to do things, but he > criticized and belittled students for their mistakes rather than having > them understand the errors. When students were successful, there is > no evidence that Snape facilitated their ability to understand why > certain ingredients worked etc. Had Snape really and fully taught > Hermione everything he could, rather than just showing her HOW to > make potions while not encouraging her understanding, she probably > would have done much better in Slughorn's class. > Snape certainly seems to be a living ruin. In him, especially in his incarnation as the HBP, we can see a great teacher that might have been. In the better world to which I alluded above, he might well have been a rival to McGonagall, or more exactly, to Dumbledore, as we really have never seen that McGonagall is particularly successful in inspiring a "love" or "feel" for Transfiguration in her students, as one suspects Dumbledore was. Indeed, the only real example we have of a professor who truly seems to "connect" with a student -- save for Harry and Lupin which is a special case due to Lupin's history -- is Neville and Professor Sprout. It just doesn't seem that good teaching is much of a Hogwarts' tradition. Unfortunately, Snape is only a twisted mockery of what he could have become. > Perhaps, though, Snape's methods were due to impending O.W.L.s; > his teaching could have been the greatest Academic Dishonesty of all. > Maybe the ministry had "No Wizard Left Behind" legislation (like the > American "No Child Left Behind" unfunded mandate that forces many > schools to spend all their time and resources preparing for high stakes > testing) that forced potentially talented potions masters like Snape to > teach to the test instead of instilling a deep understanding of content. > Not that I'm excusing his treatment of Harry and other Gryffindors, but > even the Slytherins weren't doing well in 6th year Potions now that Snape > was no longer their teacher. > This may well be true, at least in part. Testing, for all its necessity and usefulness, can easily have a detrimental effect on educational practices. My teaching (and learning) experiences have all been in the American system, which is not nearly so test-driven as some other systems, even in the age of No-Child-Left-Behind (there is really no equivalent of the OWL/GCSE, and even the SAT is not precisely the same as the NEWTS/A-levels). Nevertheless, the teacher whose career is based on "teaching the test, not the students" is a figure with whom everyone is drearily familiar. In the case of Severus, the prominence of the OWLS and NEWTS perhaps does little to call forth the kind of teaching of which he might, in a better world, be capable. But, unfortunately, there seems to be little at Hogwarts, with the possible exception of Dumbledore's personal intervention, and very possibly not even that, which is able to call out the best in Severus. Lupinlore From mugg1eb0rn at aol.com Sat Sep 3 07:07:54 2005 From: mugg1eb0rn at aol.com (mugg1eb0rn at aol.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 03:07:54 EDT Subject: Academic Dishonesty Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139428 Merrylinks what counts in science is the validity of the result, not the particular technique that is used to reach it. In the Wizarding World, values may be different. I do remember that Snape was angry when Hermione helped Neville fix a potion that Snape was expecting to use to kill Trevor the toad. But in the Scientific World, Neville would only have gotten into trouble if he had taken some of Hermione's potion and claimed that it was his own. Taking Hermione's advice, or following the scribblings that somebody wrote in the margins of the protocol would not be objectionable in any way as long as the potion turned out correctly. Janet: I feel I should point out that the book in question with these scribbled notes was Snape's, and the notes are assumed to be his? I also recall that frequently, Snape's Potion classes followed directions he had written on the board. He sometimes said the directions were also in the text, I believe (can't cite all the examples at the moment), but it could be that the directions on the board contained some of his own "improvements." Slughorn relied on the text for giving the directions for the potions to his students, and he frequently was disappointed in the results compared to what Harry was producing from Snape's instructions. This suggests that the poster who said the book was outdated may have been correct. There is also a very real possibility that if Snape was teaching the Potions class instead of DADA, the students may have ALL been taught the directions in Harry's copy, rather than what they were producing. We shall never know, of course, and Harry's switching of the book with Ron's when he was ordered to produce it isn't exactly ethical. However, I must side with the people who say that in subjects that depend upon the practical end results, the end is all that counts. Does the potion do what it is supposed to do? It's like comparing a brand-name drug with a generic--it's only wrong if the medicine doesn't cure the condition for which it is prescribed. Now, if we are to evaluate the teaching styles and methods of the two teachers, Slughorn does come off better than Snape. He can be a lamentable kiss-"butt" to the students he wants to "collect," such as Harry, but from what we saw, he tries to vary the lessons a bit, encourages the students by offering rewards for success, and doesn't go out of his way to thrown out completed potions so that he can give the students he dislikes a "0" and does everything he can to make sure his favorites get the benefit of the doubt (although Snape does get seriously annoyed when his favorites fail to live up to his standards, I must admit). It's also possible that Slughorn isn't totally wrong about Harry having some degree of intuition about potion-making, like his mother. As has been mentioned previously by I'm-sorry-but-I-forget-whom, Harry's "Exceeds Expectations" on his OWLS when he had the opportunity to prepare them without the hostility, harassment, and out-and-out abuse from Snape, indicates Harry may have more ability in that area than he could ever have shown under Snape's direct tutelage. It's ironic that he received it anyway from the teacher's old textbook. So, if we are talking about Harry's academic dishonesty, I don't feel Snape should get a free pass in this area, either. How dishonest was he in his treatments of many students, not just Harry, in the way he was teaching the subject? I know that those who apologize for Snape for everything will not agree, of course, but then, they are entitled to their own opinions, of course, just as I am to mine. Janet (who is a certified teacher and social worker, by the way) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mugg1eb0rn at aol.com Sat Sep 3 07:55:47 2005 From: mugg1eb0rn at aol.com (mugg1eb0rn at aol.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 03:55:47 EDT Subject: Missing Horcruxes & Harry's Protection from Lily Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139429 Jiloppy: >Does anyone else think that the missing Horcrux could have been taken >and destroyed by Sirius brother? The initials are the same. Remember >Sirius tells Harry that Voldemore killed his brother himself. I think you're right about Sirius' brother taking the locket, but I don't think the locket was destroyed. Remember the locket at 12 Grimmauld Place when the OOP was cleaning up the place? The one no one could open? My friend Juli17 (who suggested I might be interested in this group) mentioned to me once that the locket there could be the real horcrux. Regulus would certainly have had the opportunity to hide it there. Kreacher probably has it hidden in his nest. In fact, the goblets that Mundungus stole out of the house should be investigated, too. It's likely none of them are the missing goblet, but it's certainly possible that Regulus could have disguised it in some way with the Black crest, and hidden it in the house that way, since he was unab (or afraid) to destroy it. In fact, what if the only way a horcrux could safely be destroyed is through the actions of the wizard who created it? Or maybe someone who had the essence of that wizard on his person in the form of another horcrux? Since no other wizard seems to have been amoral enough or powerful enough to create more than one in the past, no one would know if this were the case, unless Harry shows us the way. Personally, I believe Harry does not have the horcrux "in" him. I think it's "on" him--I think it's his scar that is the horcrux. It is "no ordinary scar" as we have known from the beginning. It is LV's mark that sets him apart, and, according to DD, was created "accidentally" by LV, causing the transfer of some of his powers to Harry. The accident, I believe, was caused because of the way Lily's protective charm, whatever it was, acted (forgive me if this seems to be restating the obvious, but I'm still trying to figure this out even as I type). The "crux" of the matter (forgive me again!) is that if any time one wizard murdered another a horcrux was created, the process would be much better known. Tom Riddle wouldn't have had to cozy up to Slughorn to get instructions in it. It obviously IS known, because DD didn't want them to be taught at Hogwarts, but it can't be very common. This must mean that the wizard must use spells, probably complicated ones, as well as murder someone with the AK in order to create one. Whatever Lily did caused it to backfire (the "Love Charm" theory sounds like a good one to me, since LV discounts the power so clearly), but a horcrux DID form none the less. Maybe even the fact that LV killed both of Harry's parents just before trying to kill Harry can account for this. He was the Boy Who Lived because he was created by the love of his parents, and therefore the Love Charm protected him and all but destroyed the wizard trying to take advantage of their deaths? This might also explain why Harry's blood was needed for LV to take independent physical form again. I am pretty sure the horcrux is in Harry's scar for several reasons. One is that JKR has said the last word she plans for book 7 is "scar," and that it is probably a clue. Another is just the way the scar has acted from the very beginning, as the starting point for excruciating pain, which, as time has gone on, has also been the seat of his greatest sensations of unreasoning anger, especially towards DD and, interestingly enough, Snape. If this is the link to Voldemort, as it has always seemed to be, it's logical that that is where the piece of him lies within him. We were told on many occasions that when Harry even saw DD at certain times, the anger seemed to overwhelm him as if it were coming from outside of himself. Perhaps when LV had doubts about whether his spy Snape was actually working for him rather than DD the anger also was transmitted to Harry through the scar. When Harry was getting Occlumency lessons from Snape, the scar hurt him horribly. Seems to fit that this could be the horcrux, and if it is, it would undoubtedly be the last that would have to be dealt with before LV could be vanquished. And if the locket that can't be opened is that horcrux, Harry's scar (or wherever the horcrux is in Harry, if it should not be the scar) could be very hard to deal with. I do hope that JKR will allow Harry to be the Boy Who Lived once again. The alternative--that Lord Voldemort is the One Who Survives--is very depressing. Given the situation in the world at times it certainly seems possible, but I keep telling myself that as dark as the story can get at times, it was originally conceived as a story for kids, so I'm trying to maintain my optimism that Harry will survive and get a chance to prosper. Janet (who also asks forgiveness if this subject of the scar-as-horcrux has already been discussed to death in the past--she can barely keep up with the current posts, let alone explore the archives extensively) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bob.oliver at cox.net Sat Sep 3 08:01:47 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 08:01:47 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139430 > Del replies: > What is being taught is the ability to successfully make a potion > *according to a certain protocol*. Simply having the students make > potions would be a waste of time and resources. Though the potions are > what is used to grade the students, they are not what really matters. > What matters is how good of a potion can the students make while > following a particular method. It's the *skill* the students develop > and demonstrate that matters, their ability to produce a certain > result under certain circumstances - including the method they are > given. So using another method makes the whole exercise worthless. > How on Earth do you know this? I do not recall anywhere EVER having the educational aims and philosophy of potions class or Hogwarts as a whole discussed. I grant you that if Hogwarts follows the same lines as a muggle Liberal Arts institution this would be the case, but I have never seen any evidence that this is the philosophy of Hogwarts. Indeed, all the evidence we have seems to point to a very different model, one of technical training rather than liberal education. No one at Hogwarts or in the Wizarding World seems very interested in the students learning patterns of thought or theoretical understanding. Rather, they value practical skills at DOING magic. After all, this is the very foundation of their society, the thing that makes them different than muggles. There is no reason that a muggle could not understand the theoretical principles of magic just as well as a wizard. It is in the actual practical DOING of magic that wizards are different, and a Hogwarts education seems focused tightly on training young wizards in technical skills. All of the classes at Hogwarts are applied classes, with the possible exception of Arithmancy and Ancient Runes, and those might well be applied as well for all we know, as we have never actually seen them. The types of classes that would, logically, be necessary for the liberal and theoretical study of magic are suspiciously absent. To mention just the most basic, since spells are phrased in Latin a theoretical understanding of magic would logically require education in at least the basics of the Latin language. How could you phrase a new spell properly if you don't know the differences among the Indicative (what does something) the Accusative (what something is done to) and the Ablative (what something is done with)? Yet this crucial and necessary subject is completely absent from Hogwarts. And the reason for that seems to be that Hogwarts simply is not a place that teaches or values philosophical and theoretical knowledge. McGonnagall does not seem to be concerned in the least whether students understand the theoretical underpinnings of transfiguration, she wants her students to be able to turn cups into coyotes. Snape and Slugworth do not appear to care one whit if students understand the theory behind making a love potion. They want their students to be able to actually make a love potion that functions. In short, I think that Snape and Slugworth (and McGonagall and Sprout and Hagrid and everybody else on the faculty except Dumbledore) would totally disagree with you. They would say that making a potion that works IS what really matters, and theoretical understanding is at best only of secondary importance -- and probably not important for the average wizard at all. They don't care if their students understand transfiguration, they want them to be able to transfigure. They don't care if their students understand charms, they want them to be able to cast them. They don't care if their students understand DADA, they want them to be able to fight off curses and dementors. They don't care if their students understand potions, they want them to be able to brew potions that work. After all, understanding is something any mere muggle could do. Actually DOING magic, THAT makes a wizard! Since we know from JKR that their are no Wizarding universities, at least not in Britain, I suspect that those who want more theoretical knowledge are expected to learn it after graduating from Hogwarts through a combination of independent study and informal apprenticeship. It is possible that some employers also offer further education. In fact, we know that the Ministry does this for its Aurors, and it's likely that the three years of education in the Auror program provide the theoretical and philosophical training not provided by Hogwarts. That's a bass ackwards way of doing things by our thinking, but it was very common up until the relatively recent past (for instance even as late as the 1950s aspiring members of the Society of Jesus, at least in the United States, did not learn any actual religious philosophy or theology until they had spent several years in applied ministry settings, and the Jesuits were considered the Church's most intellectual order). We think in terms of giving people basic understanding and theoretical knowledge, which are then applied to practical problems. However, historically it was much more common to emphasize practical skills first and foremost, the idea being that relatively few people would ever have the need, or the ability, to learn the "advanced" ideas that lay behind applied techniques. Given that the Wizarding World seems to be intellectually and socially retarded -- often so much so that one wonders if magical ability takes up the neurons in the wizarding brain that are used for analytical and imaginative thinking among muggles -- it would make sense for their educational system to reflect such a traditional but outmoded pattern. Lupinlore From lady.indigo at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 05:09:10 2005 From: lady.indigo at gmail.com (lady.indigo at gmail.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 01:09:10 -0400 Subject: Dumbledore and Harry WAS: Re: Apologies and responsibility In-Reply-To: References: <63378ee705090211336584a75@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <63378ee7050902220913f11415@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139431 Alla wrote: >>I think that there is a good chance that Dumbledore did exactly that - namely he was hoping that Snape and Harry will get along while they will learn more about each other. But I don't see it as sign of idiocy, more like Dumbledore's idealistic faith in Snape, IMO.<< Lady Indigo: As a side note, sure, or maybe even a purpose of equal importance, but why create such a loaded situation that has the same power struggle of student and teacher Harry and Snape face any other day if that were the only point? If that was the secret intent behind the exercise, no matter how idealistic Dumbledore is I think he'd have the sense to know this wouldn't have just taken time and their own maturity, or the situation between Harry and Snape would have been better by now, not worse. Alla: >>I think that Dumbledore put Occlumency aside permanently. I think that after OOP he realized that it is not going to be the most important tool to help Harry ( it is your heart that saved you).<< Lady Indigo: And that's partly what I meant. I've seen that argument posed before and I agree with it. :)a: Alla: >>Wasn't Dumbledore already dismissed as Headmaster at the time they went to Chamber? They could not approach him even if they wanted to, but in a sense Harry did ask for help from Dumbledore and received it , didn't he?<< Technically if you're going by my hypothetical they could have owled him for advice or something, but either way, H&R should have gone to see someone like him who generally has a brain in their head and is on the side of the boys. They could have talked to McGonagall or any of the other teachers who couldn't stand Lockhart and seen if they could find some way to be believed about their claims against the guy. I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying here, though. I'm not talking about Harry and Ron's actions against the basilisk or saying they DID act wrongly. Unless they just let Lockhart go they acted the only way they could have. I'm just saying that it *was* ok to take a (mostly) defenseless and unprepared Lockhart down into the Chamber with them considering how Ginny *was* in danger and they needed to save her. But if hypothetically they could have taken all the time in the world before helping Ginny, then they of course should have found some other way to expose him. Then again, when the original poster said 'deserved to be kidnapped' she may have just meant 'detained from fleeing the school', in which case I'm making an ass of myself. :) - Lady Indigo [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lady.indigo at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 09:48:03 2005 From: lady.indigo at gmail.com (lady.indigo at gmail.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 05:48:03 -0400 Subject: Academic dishonesty (was "Apologies and responsibility") In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <63378ee705090302482cc0ca67@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139432 Steve wrote: >>Let's change the scenario slightly. Let's say that Harry found a nice detailed Potions book at the bookstore or in the library, and brought that to class because he felt it was a more up-to-date and more accurate reference than a 50 year old text book. Would you still have the same view of his cheating, even if you don't consider it /technically/ cheating?<< Lady Indigo: If he didn't share that text with Slughorn and the rest of the class, leading people to think it was *his* brilliant new discovery? Yeah. Plus these notes weren't readily available to other students. If he'd taken the initiative to do extra research available in a public forum, that would have at least constituted some kind of work. But these added ideas fell into his lap. So for the record, since I find lists useful, Harry: 1. Won a contest using additional help that he didn't produce himself and wasn't readily available to anyone else. 2. Used a shortcut (the beozar) to get out of a lesson where the point wasn't just the result, but also understanding the principle behind that area of potionsmaking, something he definitely hadn't figured out by the end of the lesson. (Sure, Slughorn still praised him, but Slughorn was praising a loophole that *Harry never found*. And I don't doubt he'd have found any excuse to butter Harry up, anyway.) 3. Hid the truth about his textbook from Slughorn and attempted to do the same with Snape, then recieved detention for the use of it when he was found out. If he wasn't doing anything wrong, why the coverup? The lying? The taking the punishment without arguing with Snape or appealing to Dumbledore? I've seen these questions get asked a few times now and nobody's even bothered to answer them. So even if you only see Potions as a series of recipies or pre-planned Chemistry methods, where even at the NEWT level theory is completely unimportant, there are still moral ambiguities to what Harry did. - Lady Indigo From h_hawks_71 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 05:30:01 2005 From: h_hawks_71 at yahoo.com (Heidi) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 05:30:01 -0000 Subject: A question about each HP book Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139433 Hi, after lurking on and off for a couple years I worked up enough courage to post a couple of questions that have burning in my mind as I read and reread the HP books. Some queations my co-workers and I have been discussing as we read the books together. 1. Book one- a two part question-- How did Harry survive the cold, both literally and figuratively? How did Harry survive a cold night on the Dusley's door step. In my part of the world its freezing cold Oct.31/ Nov.1st. An older infant can freeze to death in a surprisingly short time. I assuming that Dumbledore or Hagrid put some kind warming spell on the blanket and magically wrapped the blanket so Harry would stay wrapped up. Babies tend to move around a lot when they sleep. (Okay that question was kind of simple but it fun to think about.) The next part of the question is harder- how did Harry survive the icy cold treatment from his family? Evey time I read the fisrt book I suprised that Harry is not suffering from failure to thrive. Failure to thrive is a condition that we seen time and again throughout history. The fisrt time it came into the world view was during the Great Depression. Infants were dropped into orphanages at a alarming rate. Well meaning ophanages placed the children in cribs, feed them on schedule, keep them clean and dry, and they recieved medical care. And the infants died at alarming rates. It was discovered that the lack of human touch and connection caused the infants to stop growing, lack of phycial development( sitting up, crawling, etc. etc.), withdrawl from social interaction and after awhile the children would just loss the will to live. (by the way Harry was discribed as small for his age in SS/PS) I image that Harry was treated the same way as the orphanes, he was feed and kept clean and that was about it. I cann't remember any time in the books were Harry was touched by the Dursleys until book five were Vernon choked Harry. I know many people have commented that Harry had 15 months of loving care from his parents, but nurturing a child is not like an vaccaine- you get X number of hug and attention and you're fixed for life. Nuturing a child is like feeding them, they need consent love and attention. If a child is well feed for 15 months, then had a poor diet afterwards, they would soon start to show the same symptoms as child who had the same poor diet from the start of their life. So how did Harry survive the cold treatment from his family? 2. Book Two-- How far does the clothing rule goes with House Elves? Dobby said that his family is very careful not to pass him a single piece of clothing, and Ron stated that his Mom wanted an elf to do the laundry. Can the family order the elf to do laundry and not set them free as long as they don't hand the basket. I tried to visilized Narcissa doing laundry, but I can't see her scubbing the skid marks out of Draco's underroo's if there was a house elf around to do it. Also, what did the O.W.L and N.E.W.T. students do when exams were canceled? How did that effect their future careers and school placements 3. Book 3--When Hermione had a time-turner since day one of school, how come both her and her "time double" didn't know about each other. She know she was redoing hours, so she souldn't be surprised if saw each other. I could see Harry's confusing if saw himself becouse he didn't know it exsisted until he used it after all events of the day-but Hermione know she running amuck with time. 4.Book Four-About Hargid and other half giants-- Not to be crude or anything, but how could a giant and wizard/witch live together, let alone procreate? If a giant is 20-25 feet and human is 5'8-6'2, how can they share space? Would a giant be willing to be shrunk to fit into a normal house and live as spouses and all that entails. 5. Book 5-- What is Dudley worst fear when he incounter the dementors? I think it was his witnessing all the bad treatment of Harry. I grow up with a father who makes Vernon look like Father of the Year in comparsion. Luckly, he rarely took his anger out on me,( I was sick a lot and also learned how to fly under his radar early) but watching him mistreat my six siblings was much more scary for me then any physical abuse I could suffer. Imagine that you are a 16 month old and you have a happy and spoiled life and all a sudden a new person showed up and you witness a new and mean side to your parents. Then you see this treatment for the next 14+ years. All you can think is when am I going to be next? i think Dudley lives in fear of being treated like Harry. 6. Book 6-- Who is R.A.B. I know that a lot of people believed that its Sirius's brother, but J.K. Rowlings has surprised so many times, that I just can't see the answer being in that plain of sight. 7. Book 7-- ????? I cann't list all the questions I have so I just post the most important one. When will J.K.R. finish writing it. I can't wait to read it. Lady Hawk From carodave92 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 15:16:43 2005 From: carodave92 at yahoo.com (carodave92) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 15:16:43 -0000 Subject: Harry's character development In-Reply-To: <006601c5b06c$fbb3ac60$7cc2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139434 CathyD says: > > There's one point in HBP that Dumbledore tells Harry that Riddle found out more of the magic within the castle than any other student (something like that, sorry my book isn't handy). I thought, well, certainly more than Harry who's found out nothing. Yes, he got into the CoS but that wasn't done on his own. Dobby told him about the Room of Requirement. Fred and George handed him the Marauders' Map and told him how to use it or he'd never have found any of the secret passages out of the school. > Now Carodave: I see this as Harry's main strength, not a weakness - Harry operates out of love. He has a good support network and many friends and options for assistance. People *want* to help Harry out of love for him. LV has none of that. His supporters help him out of fear of the consequences. Even as a student, he worked alone; he discovered all about the school by himself because he had no desire to share his talent or findings with anyone else. Part of the reason that Harry has discovered less than Tom did is that he spends more time nurturing relationships, which in the end always help him. Even his passion, Quidditch, is team oriented. That is why he found the secret passages (courtesy of F&G), the RoR (courtesy of Dobby), etc. I have no doubt that in the end, although Harry will surely face LV alone, he will have arrived at that point through hints and assistance from his friends every step of the way. Carodave From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 3 16:05:20 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 16:05:20 -0000 Subject: Snape's penance? (was: Opposite of a Horcrux/Interesting Parallel) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139435 Marika: > A storyline that would appeal to me (believing in a > dislikable/unpleasant, but not evil Snape, who has remained on > Dumbledore's side) would be one where Dumbledore indeed did ask > Snape to end his (Dumbledore's) life at the Astronomy Tower. > Under normal circumstances a horrible request, since it would > split Snape's soul. But if Dumbledore would be able to transfer > (part of) his own soul to Snape (not Harry) in "exchange"? I > believe this would change the picture a bit. Maybe it would have a > healing effect on a damaged soul as well as wounds that "run too > deep for the healing." (OoTP p. 735)? I would like that. > > I tend to think of Snape as someone who has wasted his own and > ruined others life(s). But since I also see somebody (my own > interpretation of course) who changed sides and faced the > consequences of what he had done, I wish to see an ending where he > can go on with his life with less hatred and bitterness. SSSusan: I'm not actually going to address your idea that DD might have transferred a portion of his own soul to Snape. Rather, I'd like to go with the possibility that Snape's soul *was* ripped. If you and I are right that DD asked Snape to kill him -- and I don't care if it was pre-planned in detail, pre-planned as a "someday this might present itself and you're going to have to do it" thing, or was a spur of the moment legillimency thing -- there are many people who have a problem with the notion of DD asking someone to commit murder, of asking a person to do something which rips his soul. Now, I actually happen to think (and I have no canon support, I know!) that it's possible that a "mercy killing" or a killing commanded by a superior officer in time of war just might not cause the soul to rip the way that a cold-blooded murder does. But assuming the other folks are correct and I'm wrong -- that even this kind of killing DOES cause the rip -- might it not be that this horrible thing, this ripping of the soul, is simply the *penance* Snape is paying for the mistakes he's made? Snape was a DE. Quite likely he participated in some pretty nasty actions as a DE. He also *is* responsible for providing Voldy with the prophecy information that eventually led to the attack on the Potters at Godric's Hollow. Many people have expressed that they would like to see Snape suffer, to be punished for his sins/crimes. Now, still assuming Loyal!Snape here, his being asked to do something like this -- to kill the man he, imo, cared most about in the world -- and to rip his own soul in the process... wouldn't that be the kind of suffering some people are asking for? Wouldn't that be "good enough" for Snape's penance?? Siriusly Snapey Susan From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sat Sep 3 16:32:34 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 16:32:34 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139436 "delwynmarch" wrote: > Simply having the students make potions > would be a waste of time and resources. I must disagree, I think rigidly forcing students to follow exact instructions even though they have found a much better procedure would be a waste of time and resources. In our world a good chemistry professor would praise a student to high heaven who went to the library and found a little known method to perform an experiment that was superior to the one given in the textbook. I just find it very hard to believe that in the wizard world things would be different and the entire point of the class was to see how well students can blindly follow stupid and incompetent instructions; let's face it, the standard Advanced Potions book just isn't very good. And wasn't there a scene where Slughorn praised a student for adding a bit of peppermint even though it was unconventional? > the fact that he [Harry] never once > understood *why* the modifications > made the potions better That appears to be true, but I have seen little evidence that any of the students, Hermione included, have much understanding why potions work as they do; certainly just following the crummy instructions in the standard textbook won't enlighten them. > that does leave me pretty disgusted > at the way he kept using the HBP Even if you disagree with my take on it, "pretty disgusted" seems like very strong language to me, especially compared with the monstrous evil we've seen in this and other Potter books. It just seems like very small potatoes, and I think we hold Harry to an impossibly high moral standard and never give the poor boy an inch of slack; with other characters, especially Snape, we make the opposite mistake. Eggplant From finwitch at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 16:40:21 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 16:40:21 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty (was "Apologies and responsibility") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139437 "Matt" wrote: > I'm not sure I agree with that conclusion, but let's bring the example > in line with the situation in HBP: Not an older sibling's book, but a > secondhand book with scribbles in the margin. I used many secondhand > books in my day, and it never would have occurred to me to cite the > unknown author if my reading of the text had been colored by the > marginal notes -- >Do the "talented" potionmakers in > the class actually understand what they are doing, or are they simply > following instructions? Does Harry -- presented with the contrast > between the textbook instructions and Snape's -- understand things any > better than the rest of the class, or is he, too, simply following > instructions? Finwitch: You know -- as Harry's not a book-learner, nor one who strives to understand theory. He's one who learns best in pracical view, by intuition etc. as well as extremely lucky where it counts... he appreciates and values Hermione for knowledge, cleverness and understanding of their subjects, but theory is not for Harry. You know, particularly now that they ARE learning how to do magic without incantation at all - remembering Hermione instructing Ron how to properly pronounce the Wingardium Leviosa they had to be doing... I don't think the incantation *really* mattered. It's just that - putting high emphasis to the incantation said in exactly the correct accent, waving a wand in exactly correct method during the early years of learning - prevents the early failure from destroying belief and confidence, both of which are more or less vital for the controlled magic they're teaching - or correct set of mind. The magical mind needs to be taught subtly - very subtly. In both Neville and Merope we've seen what *confidence* means for spellcasting, by showing the lack of it applied to spells. We've seen how Ron, despite of failing to levitate a feather in class, succeed in levitating a Troll's Club with that same spell. Why? Because when that Troll's about to kill him, he's definately NOT thinking whether or not he can do it, only about DOING it. And of course, after he's done that, he KNOWS he can. Just like Harry's Patronus. He could cast it, with the timeturner helping him to realize that he really CAN do it, right here and now... As for Harry's potions - well, I think his intuition - possibly what he had learned from Tom Riddle/his parents earlier, when very young but suppressed due to Dursleys - that in a way, Harry's only remembering what he's always known. In addition, I'd say that Harry looking at the notes merely allows him an excuse to access knowledge within that he's had for quite some time. If, for instance, he had remembered his mother brewing that potion -- he'd still have another recipe, another knowledge... Finwitch From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 17:01:02 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 17:01:02 -0000 Subject: Occlumency redux, redux Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139438 Back so long ago, I posted some theories about how Occlumency could be theorized: 116339, 116353, 116493, 116611, etc. [There's more out there but I can't find things at the present...who can?] Well, I didn't come out terribly well, I admit. But on the other hand, the commentary JKR gave us about Occlumency is, ummm, very interesting: > Harry's problem with it was always that his emotions were too near > the surface and that he is in some ways too damaged. But he's also > very in touch with his feelings about what's happened to him. He's > not repressed, he's quite honest about facing them, and he couldn't > suppress them, he couldn't suppress these memories. 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? Let's break this apart. Harry has problems with Occlumency because he's emotionally damaged, and his emotions are too near the surface. This fits with the problems he had in the attempt to shut himself off. However, we immediately get something of a reversal in the commentary- -Harry is actually very *in touch* with his feelings, he's *honest* about them, and he's not going to repress or suppress them. Okay, so Occlumency requires emotional repression. I'm not a psychologist, but it struck me that connecting emotional repression to this magical skill puts a very decidedly negative spin upon it. Look at two characters who we canonically know can do Occlumency--Draco and Snape. JKR right out tells us that Draco shuts down his pity; he refuses to let himself feel for other people. Draco cuts himself off from empathy and at least one understanding of what love is, via his isolation and consequent devaluation of other human beings. Snape...well, I don't want to go there in the depth the argument will inevitably turn, but he's never come across (we're talking canon here, not the line of "Oh, he was 5% less nasty than usual in that scene!") as a demonstrably empathetic type, either. I personally take "I see no difference" as a thematic statement for the character. At the least, if he does feel empathic/connective things for other people, he doesn't let them show and doesn't express them. So it seems pretty clear that two people in canon who can do Occlumency are not the nicest people in the world (although they may yet end up with the white hats), but more importantly, are both emotionally unhealthy, and quite possibly emotionally dishonest with themselves. Occlumency is discussed as something that the isolated and cold are good at. Why such a negative spin on the skill? It puts Dumbledore's "Your heart saved you, not your mind" quote (paraphrasing, as everything is under a pile of scores) in new light. [Consequently, there's another line which listies have had some trouble taking at face value--but again, seems absolutely solidly 100% intended to be taken that way. There's a whole lot of thematic messiness if you don't, too. Anyone want to discuss *this* tendency in Rowling, which seems to be increasing in importance? There are so many things that we've wanted to brush off as being more complicated (in past books) that are turning into things intended to be taken whole and at face...] Contrary to Snape's 'instructions' at the end of the book, I don't think Harry needs Occlumency at all. *Especially* not the kind of Occlumency Snape is good at. In fact, a Harry eminently capable of Occlumency might be a Harry cutting himself off from what he really needs to have access to in order to win this battle. [I submit that there's still room for my more genteel theory of Occlumency out there, but we do now know why Snape is good at it, and why his teaching method would never really work for Harry.] I suspect, against my own better inclinations, that the denoument of the series is going to be emotionally based rather than intellectually. That is to say, resolution is not going to come from Harry having figured out that there were all kinds of irregularities surrounding Dumbledore's death, and piecing together Snape's actual actions (this is assuming an Innocent!Snape at the moment). It's more likely, IMO, to come from an emotional connection and realization, with a potential forgiveness plot rolled in there. This, if true, makes a genial mockery of all our attempts to detail- by-detail work out how Snape is actually innocent. Which is part of why I think Rowling may well go for it. But that's just me. Heart and empathy and action over calculation and reflection? Seems to reflect the hierarchy where, like it or not, Rowling values Gryffindor principles considerably more than Slytherin-associated ones. So yes, I think that it's going to be some power of Harry's heart and love and emotion which ultimately carries the day, not his detective skills or dueling abilities. Not to say that it won't involve both, but there seems to be a clear hierarchy in the books which celebrates the former over the latter. -Nora digs out from under piles of handouts for her rugrats From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sat Sep 3 17:06:00 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 17:06:00 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty. In-Reply-To: <63378ee705090302482cc0ca67@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139439 wrote: > [Harry] Used a shortcut (the beozar) > to get out of a lesson where the > point wasn't just the result, but > also understanding the principle > behind that area of potionsmaking Slughorn would disagree with you and as he was the teacher he may have a better understanding of the point of the lesson than you do. > If he wasn't doing anything wrong, > why the coverup? Knowing the capricious actions of many Hogwarts teachers he was probably afraid they'd take the book away, and I have no doubt Harry enjoyed being top of the class. Who wouldn't? Harry didn't steal the book, it was given to him by the teacher and if there was more in that book than the teacher knew then so be it. I see no moral obligation for Harry to inform the world that there was graphite in it if he didn't want to, and he didn't want to. He did offer to share the instructions with Ron and Hermione but Ron couldn't and Hermione wouldn't. Eggplant From h_hawks_71 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 16:30:38 2005 From: h_hawks_71 at yahoo.com (Heidi) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 16:30:38 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139440 Lupinlore said: > After all, this is the very foundation of their society, the thing > that makes them different than muggles. There is no reason that a > muggle could not understand the theoretical principles of magic just > as well as a wizard. It is in the actual practical DOING of magic > that wizards are different, and a Hogwarts education seems focused > tightly on training young wizards in technical skills. Ladyhawk: >From what I remember reading in all the books is that the class were a combination of theory and practical practices. In Transfiguration and Charms the students were expected to do the magic in class and also required to do essays on the theories behind the magic. From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Sep 3 17:39:48 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 17:39:48 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139441 Lupinlore: > The tragedy in HBP is more subtle, but still > profound. HBP gives us a window into another, > better world that might have been, if things had > gone differently long ago. In that alternate > reality the pureblood prejudice did not work > its way so deep into the social fabric of the > Wizarding World, Dumbledore was wiser in the > way he dealt with a young Tom Riddle, and the > Marauder's generation was not so riven with > jealousy and hatred. In that world it is easy > to imagine a healthier and happier Severus Snape, > still sarcastic and cynical but without the cruel > edge, growing very fond of a certain brash, energetic, > dark-haired Gryffindor, and said Gryffindor finding > that his favorite professor is not a passive, > emotionally repressed werewolf but his dry-witted, > irreverent potions master. Perhaps Dumbledore hoped > that Occlumency would, among other things, allow some > dim shadow of that better world to be salvaged. But > the deep tragedy is that the better world is only > a dream -- a dream that was rendered impossible > years ago by prejudice, blunders, hatred, and death. houyhnhnm: Beautifully put, and consistant with statements by Rowling which indicate that the Wizarding World is not the escape it first appears to be, either for Harry or for the reader. As for Harry's use of HBP's book, I agree that it may not be academic dishonesty in a strict sense, but it is unethical. The dishonesty is not in accepting a better *grade* by using someone else's notes, but by accepting *praise* for skill and originality which Harry doesn't really possess. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 17:52:43 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 17:52:43 -0000 Subject: Occlumency redux, redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139442 nrenka wrote: > Let's break this apart. Harry has problems with Occlumency because > he's emotionally damaged, and his emotions are too near the surface. > This fits with the problems he had in the attempt to shut himself off. a_svirn: Well, I am not a psychologist either, but it strikes me as odd that you would call "emotionally damaged" someone who ? we've been told on numerous occasions ? has the greatest ability to love in the whole Potterverse. nrenka wrote: > > I'm not a psychologist, but it struck me that connecting emotional > repression to this magical skill puts a very decidedly negative spin > upon it. Look at two characters who we canonically know can do > Occlumency--Draco and Snape. JKR right out tells us that Draco shuts > down his pity; he refuses to let himself feel for other people. a_svirn: There is that of course, but it's not pity Harry had trouble of shutting down, but rage and hatred. I'd say it wouldn't be such a bad thing if he learned to do that. nrenka wrote: > Draco cuts himself off from empathy and at least one understanding of > what love is, via his isolation and consequent devaluation of other > human beings. a_svirn: It's a pretty big leap you make. Yes, the practice of Occlumency requires a certain (high, in fact) degree of detachment, but it doesn't mean that it should lead to any "devaluation of human beings". Take Dumbledore ? he is adept in both detachment and Occlumency, yet he values lives of others and very much so. From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 18:22:34 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 18:22:34 -0000 Subject: Occlumency redux, redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139443 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > a_svirn: > > Well, I am not a psychologist either, but it strikes me as odd that > you would call "emotionally damaged" someone who ? we've been told > on numerous occasions ? has the greatest ability to love in the > whole Potterverse. 'Damaged' was JKR's adjective. The modifier was mine, and a bit of an extrapolation. It seems applicable in some situations, although not all. > a_svirn: > > There is that of course, but it's not pity Harry had trouble of > shutting down, but rage and hatred. I'd say it wouldn't be such a > bad thing if he learned to do that. I'd argue that shutting himself off from his memories, repressing them (also JKR's word), it may not be something that can be done in such a scot-free and clean kind of way. I don't know if it's possible to go "Well, I'm going to repress all of my anger and rage, but keep my pity vectors wide open." > a_svirn: > It's a pretty big leap you make. Yes, the practice of Occlumency > requires a certain (high, in fact) degree of detachment, but it > doesn't mean that it should lead to any "devaluation of human > beings". Take Dumbledore ? he is adept in both detachment and > Occlumency, yet he values lives of others and very much so. But Dumbledore's detachment is *precisely* the cause of many of his errors, although we may disagree about what they are. For instance, I suspect that he underestimated the way that the Dursleys would treat Harry. He's underestimated the depths of Snape's grudges and enmity: his admission at the end of OotP seems to point to a realization of that, to some extent. The jury is out, but his detachment may well have led to his underestimation of Draco in HBP, and a potential misestimation of Snape. I found this bit, from the interview, also interesting: "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." There's a distinct plus and a distinct minus to Dumbledore's attitudes here. On the one hand, he wants people to help themselves and not interfere in situations. On the other hand, this means that he's *not* interventionist when it may well have helped out and changed the course of events profoundly. Why didn't he try to broker some rapprochement between Harry and Snape earlier? The answer which makes the most sense to me is that he wanted Snape to really work it out for himself, and the same for Harry. I humbly submit that *that* one didn't work out to well, so far. I can see Dumbledore developing a more integrated approach to Occlumency, one more subtle and less based upon the walling off principle...but actually, he's not the most emotionally healthy character, either. And Lupin, who probably has some Occlumency skills, does fall into a similar category (hush, Pippin :). I don't think that the pattern is an arbitrary one. -Nora chills and reads and organizes her room (if not her mind) From manawydan at ntlworld.com Sat Sep 3 18:42:01 2005 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 19:42:01 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] STWNSHH (was Size) References: <1125720790.2137.78761.m34@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <004601c5b0b7$2d7d0940$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 139444 Matt wrote: >Here is the quote from Rowling's publication day interview that I >meant to append to my last post. As I read it, she is confirming that >she envisioned exactly 40 students in Harry's year, although she >concedes that this does not really square with her idea about the >total number of students at Hogwarts (larger, aroung 600) or about the >size of the total British wizarding population (which she apparently >is estimating as approximately 3,000 school-age children, but as she >says "don't hold me to these figures, because that's not how I think"). OK, I won't! Here's a little excursus as to why, which I call STWNSHH (Simple Total: Wizarding Numbers Supporting Holyhead Harpies) Quidditch is the premier wizarding sport, with 13 professional (cf Oliver Wood) teams in the British Isles. Let's look at the fan base that each team might get, and pick on Holyhead as a possible example. With a population of 3000, each team would have an average fan base of 3000/13 or 231. Let's assume that 20% of the population hate the sport and would never go to matches (in PoA, following her statement that there were 1000 students at Hogwarts, JKR describes there being 800 at the cup final so there's a little justification for this). That brings the fan base down to 185. Let's assume (just for the sake of it) that a further 10% would like to go but can't (they are working, ill, out of the country, whatever). That brings it down to 162. Finally, let's knock off another 10% for those who are too young or old to go and for the students at Hogwarts (there's no reference in the books to their nipping off on Saturdays to watch the quiddy), bringing it down to 139. Now let's work from the other side up. Each team has 7 players, let's be conservative and assume that they have one reserve for each position, bringing it up to 11. In addition, let's say that each club has a minimum number of staff, a coach, manager, groundskeeper, and someone selling tickets and programmes. Plus a match official. That's a further 16, bringing the fan base down to 123. 123 fans supporting 15 employees of the club (I assume that the Department of Magical Games and Sports pays the referees) means that there are just 8 fans' gate money for each employee! Plus (given that there's no evidence of things like corporate sponsorship or even corporations to do the sponsoring) those fans' gate money has to cover equipment and upkeep of the ground. I think that even an amateur side would struggle under those circumstances. Even the more conservative theories would put JKR out by a factor of 10, personally I'd think it's more like a factor of 100. hwyl Ffred (who being a southerner would be rooting for Caerffili rather than Holyhead!) O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 18:44:43 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 18:44:43 -0000 Subject: Tom Riddle's Visit to Dumbledore's Office - He Tampered with His Memory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139445 "Voldemort sneered. "If you do not want to give me a job--" "Of course I don't," said Dumbledore. "And I don't think for a moment you expected me to. Nevertheless, you came here, you asked, you must have a purpose." Voldemort stood up. He looked less like Tom Riddle than ever, his features thick with rage. "This is your final word?" "It is," said Dumbledore, also standing. "Then we have nothing more to say to each other." "No, nothing," said Dumbledore, and a great sadness filled his face. "The time is long gone when I could frighten you with a burning wardrobe and force you to make repayment for your crimes. But I wish I could, Tom...I wish I could..." For a second, Harry was on the verge of shouting a pointless warning: He was sure that Voldemort's hand had twitched toward his pocket and his wand; but then the moment had passed, Voldemort had turned away, the door was closing, and he was gone. vmonte: Tom's specialty seems to be messing with peoples memories. I think that what we are witnessing here is not a penseive memory that was tampered with, but rather a person who has had their memories altered. I think that Tom's visit had more to do with either getting information from Dumbledore, or perhaps making his mind more pliable to the idea of letting another DE into the school. Vivian From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Sep 3 19:08:52 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 19:08:52 -0000 Subject: Snape's penance? (was: Opposite of a Horcrux/Interesting Parallel) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139446 SSSusan: [...] > Now, I actually happen to think (and I have no canon support, I > know!) that it's possible that a "mercy killing" or a killing > commanded by a superior officer in time of war just might not cause > the soul to rip the way that a cold-blooded murder does. But > assuming the other folks are correct and I'm wrong -- that even this > kind of killing DOES cause the rip -- might it not be that this > horrible thing, this ripping of the soul, is simply the *penance* > Snape is paying for the mistakes he's made? houyhnhnm: I have been thinking of something kind of along this same line. I, too, believe that Snape remained loyal to Dumbledore, but it also seems that he has remained somewhat ambivalent about the dark arts. We don't know whether Snape actually performed any killing curses during his DE days. What if he didn't? What if he merely stood by and watched and, with the "usual slithering out of action", avoided using any of the Unforgiveable Curses himself? What if he still believes the Unforgiveables would not be truly unforgiveable if they were used in the service of the "right" side? Dumbledore may feel, especially if the DADA curse makes it inevitable that things will end up as they do on the tower, that by allowing Snape to kill him, he is saying, "This is what killing feels like. Know what what it really is and why it is wrong and turn away from the dark arts forever". My theory for the conclusion of the story (or at least what I'd like to see happen) is that the lesson "takes". After killing Dumbledore, Snape is unable to return to Voldemort and continue to play the role of DE. Instead, he turns himself in to the Ministry and goes to Azkaban (foreshadowed by the "dark, padded cell" in the house on Spinners End). Harry's growth in knowledge and compassion in book 7, eventually leads him not only to forgive Snape, but to become his champion. This supreme act of charity creates the love magic powerful enough to destroy Voldemort for all time. BTW, with respect to "killing tears the soul", I still maintain that this is *not* canonical, if it means that any taking of life (regardless of motive or circumstances) damages the soul in some irremediable way that lying, bullying, cheating, hurting, and hating (committed by so many of the characters in the HP books) do not. I want to see quotations with page numbers. From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sat Sep 3 19:17:19 2005 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 19:17:19 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139447 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: Indeed, the only real example we > have of a professor who truly seems to "connect" with a student -- > save for Harry and Lupin which is a special case due to Lupin's > history -- is Neville and Professor Sprout. It just doesn't seem > that good teaching is much of a Hogwarts' tradition. Although it is hinted at and not directly portrayed, I would argue that a similar bond exists between Hermione and McGonagall. Remember in OOP, when McGonagall tries to warn Harry to steer clear of Umbridge. Harry mutters back something about that Ministry interfering in Hogwarts. McGonagall expresses satisfaction that at least he listens to Hermione, which suggests that Hermione has already shared these concerns with her. There's the ample praise that McGonagall always gives to Hermione during Transfiguration lessons, as well as Hermione's boggart, in the form of McGonagall - not like Neville's Boggart-Snape, a fear of the flesh-and-blood instructor, but a fear of dissappointing someone who she regards with such reverence. (It wasn't the sight of the McGonagall boggart that frightened Hermione, but its declaration that she had failed all her courses). Also, I would argue that "good teaching" implies more than simply fostering warm-fuzzies with the student. Flitwick, for example, seems to be an excellent teacher who imparts his knowledge with considerable skill (even if Charms are a soft option). And Flitwick may very well have built such bonds with other students, who are not part of the main narrative. - CMC From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 19:36:10 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 19:36:10 -0000 Subject: Occlumency redux, redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139448 nrenka wrote: > > 'Damaged' was JKR's adjective. The modifier was mine, and a bit of > an extrapolation. It seems applicable in some situations, although > not all. > a_svirn: Oh, well, I made a quick dash to TLC and here is what I found: "Harry's problem with it [Occlumency ? a_svirn] was always that his emotions were too near the surface and that he is *in some ways too damaged*. But he's also *very in touch with his feelings* about what's happened to him. *He's not repressed*, he's quite honest about facing them, and he couldn't suppress them, he couldn't suppress these memories" [emphasis mine ? a_svirn]. And about Draco: "But I thought of Draco as someone who is very capable of compartmentalizing his life and his emotions, and always has done. [snip] So he suppresses virtually all of the good side of himself. " To sum up: Harry is damaged "in some ways", *but* -- there is a distinct juxtaposition in the JKR quote ? not emotionally. He is in touch with his feelings, whereas Draco is not. It is Draco, not Harry (again according to JKR) who is damaged emotionally ? because he "suppresses all of the good side of himself". nrenka wrote: > But Dumbledore's detachment is *precisely* the cause of many of his > errors, although we may disagree about what they are. a_svirn: I am not sure about that, but Dumbledore himself seems to disagree. At the end of OoP Dumbledore admits his mistakes, but these have nothing to do with the excess of his ability to detachment. On the contrary, he clearly states that it was his great love to Harry and his *inability* to suppress his emotions made him to ignore the needs of the wartime and try to shelter Harry from the horrifying truth. nrenka wrote: > I can see Dumbledore developing a more integrated approach to > Occlumency, one more subtle and less based upon the walling off > principle...but actually, he's not the most emotionally healthy > character, either. a_svirn: I kind of intrigued, is there an emotionally healthy character in the whole Potterverse then? From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 20:03:50 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 20:03:50 -0000 Subject: Killing tears the soul apart redux. WAS: Re: Snape's penance? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139449 > houyhnhnm: > > BTW, with respect to "killing tears the soul", I still maintain that > this is *not* canonical, if it means that any taking of life > (regardless of motive or circumstances) damages the soul in some > irremediable way that lying, bullying, cheating, hurting, and hating > (committed by so many of the characters in the HP books) do not. > > I want to see quotations with page numbers. Alla: Whole story about Tom Riddle creating Horcruxes is a metaphor, which to me stands for "killing tears your soul apart" So, I would give quotations and page numbers for every time Harry watches the story of Tom's Riddle life. Too many numbers to quote, sorry. :-) I just realised that another very important moment in canon may foreshadow the idea that killing tears your soul apart. I am talking about Harry not letting Sirius and Remus kill Peter. Now, of course Harry has no clue about horcruxes yet, but could be that giving the motivation for his decision as: "I'm not doing this for you. I'm doing it because - I don't reckon my dad would've wanted them to become killers- just for you" - PoA, paperback, p.376. The narrator may foreshadow that Harry is saving Remus and Sirius souls here and prevents them from hurting, splitting. Notice, that this is the killing that many would have called righteous, or at least righteous revenge - Peter certainly committed many sins, IMO, and still Hary stops it because he thinks that Remus and Sirius should not be killers ( or he thinks that James would have thought so, whatever). JMO, Alla. From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Sat Sep 3 20:11:40 2005 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 20:11:40 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty (was "Apologies and responsibility") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139450 > Valky: > I wonder if I could add yet another angle of perspective to this > interesting thread. :D > I confess I rarely have a problem with Harry's rulebreaking, mostly > because the WW society has IMO a real set of issues in terms of > justice anyway, most of the laws and rules Harry (and all Wizardom) > lives under are simply unreliable and the unfortunate mark of a > damaged, crumbling and wartorn society. Besides I am Australian, that > speaks for itself, at least to other Aussies . The state of things > can only be made better by someone with the guts to fight for a fair > go. Harry is usually acting upon his deepest sense of fairness, > compassion and courage, so he's all right by me. > aussie_lol: So are you saying that James Potter was part Australian? No wonder DD couldn't find any other living relatives but the Dursleys in UK (j/k - but nice to ponder over) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 20:12:34 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 20:12:34 -0000 Subject: Snape's penance and the meaning of a split soul In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139451 SiriuslySnapeySusan wrote: > I'd like to go with the possibility that Snape's soul *was* ripped. > > If you and I are right that DD asked Snape to kill him there > are many people who have a problem with the notion of DD asking > someone to commit murder, of asking a person to do something which > rips his soul. > > Now, I actually happen to think (and I have no canon support, I > know!) that it's possible that a "mercy killing" or a killing > commanded by a superior officer in time of war just might not cause > the soul to rip the way that a cold-blooded murder does. But > assuming the other folks are correct and I'm wrong -- that even this > kind of killing DOES cause the rip -- might it not be that this > horrible thing, this ripping of the soul, is simply the *penance* > Snape is paying for the mistakes he's made? > > Snape was a DE. Quite likely he participated in some pretty nasty > actions as a DE. He also *is* responsible for providing Voldy with > the prophecy information that eventually led to the attack on the > Potters at Godric's Hollow. Many people have expressed that they > would like to see Snape suffer, to be punished for his sins/crimes. > Now, still assuming Loyal!Snape here, his being asked to do > something like this -- to kill the man he, imo, cared most about in > the world -- and to rip his own soul in the process... wouldn't that > be the kind of suffering some people are asking for? Wouldn't that > be "good enough" for Snape's penance?? > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Carol responds: I think it depends on what "tearing the soul" *means.* It's most unlikely that Snape is going to want to create a Horcrux (unless he's setting himself up as Voldy's successor, an idea that I see nocanon support for). What are the consequences of soul-tearing in more ordinary circumstances when murder is committed on someone else's orders (as in "Kill the spare!")? And does it matter what curse is used to commit the murder? I'm thoroughly confused, actually, by the inconsistencies in this regard. Setting aside the sociopathic Voldemort, who seems to have been born evil, we see Barty Jr. corrupted into a psychopath by his use of the Unforgiveables (not just AK), with Bellatrix, who seems to prefer Crucioing to killing, following a similar course. And we see the unquestionably evil Dolohov in OoP. I'm willing to bet that he's killed numerous times and never suffered a second's remorse. (If he were at large with time to recover from his term in Azkaban, we'd have more to worry about than from pathetic nobodies like Amycus and Alecto.) But what about Peter Pettigrew, who killed twelve Muggles when he blew up the street to frame Sirius Black and later murdered the innocent Cedric Diggory on Voldemort's orders? He doesn't seem demented like Bellatrix or cruel like Dolohov. In HBP, as Voldy's spy passing as snape's "assistant," he seems to be just as servile and cowardly as ever, fully deserving of the "vermin" epithet that Snape threw at him, but not a psychopath. Surely *his* soul is split in at least thirteen pieces, not to mention whatever other damage has been done to it by betraying and/or framing his friends and by his treatment of Bertha Jorkins, Crouch Sr., the real Moody, and Harry. But, aside from being a hunchback now (surely the result of Voldy's treatment of him, not Snape's verbal sneers), I see no difference between the Wormtail who grovels at the feet of the friends he betrayed and the Wormtail who scurries upstairs when Snape casts a spell to keep him from listening at doorways. Is Wormtail's soul split? If so, what are the consequences and why can't we see them? Has Lucius Malfoy committed murder? I'm willing to bet that he has. Why don't we see any change in him from the arrogant pureblood bigot he always was to something worse? There's no question in my mind that he's evil and has performed innumerable Unforgiveable Curses and that he deserves to be in Azkaban. But is that all there is to it? What about his soul? And what about Sirius Black and Remus Lupin, who would have jointly taken justice into their own hands by murdering Wormtail (presumably with an AK) if Harry hadn't stopped them? Assuming that they escaped the Dementors, they'd have been sent to Azkaban, but what about the effects of this murder on their *souls*? Would they be excused by the fact that Wormtail deserved it or would the fact that it was two against one and Wormtail was unarmed have made the murder unjustifiable? (This is one instance where Harry is absolutely right in my book, regardless of what happens afterwards as the result of Wormtail's escape.) As for Snape, I take Bellatrix's words that he repeatedly "slithered out of action" and JKR's words (in an interview) that as a DE "he will have *seen* [death]" to indicate that, whatever his other sins (and no doubt they included brewing poisons to be used in murders committed by others), the killing of Dumbledore is his first actual hands-on murder. (I don't think he wanted to do it; I think he was trapped by a combination of the DADA curse and his own pride and folly into taking the UV, and that his choice on the tower was between killing a dying old man and allowing a minimum of three people to die, with the DEs having the run of Hogwarts. I agree with SSS that he's killed the only person in the world that he actually loved and that he is suffering as a consequence.) I think he's going to suffer terrible remorse, much worse than he felt after the deaths of the Potters, which he apparently tried to prevent by going to both Dumbledore and James (who spurned him, PoA). This time he himself has committed the murder--not of a man to whom he owed a life debt or a woman who dimly perceived the good in him, but of the man who trusted him above all other members of the Order, the man who earlier in the year placed his life in Snape's hands and was saved by him. Maybe, like Wormtail, he'll try to excuse himself, but I don't think he will. Watever else he may be, Snape is not a coward, as shown by his remaining at Hogwarts, revealing his Dark Mark to Fudge, and going off to meet possible torture or death at the hands of Voldemort at the end of GoF. It was Karkaroff, not Snape, who ran away after he was summoned by the resurrected Voldemort. I think Snape will do whatever he can, trapped as he now is by his complete isolation from the Order members, to bring Voldemort down. I think he will keep trying, as he's always done, to protect Harry from dangers Harry doesn't see. But will that redeem him in his own eyes, let alone Harry's? Will it heal his torn soul? We don't know because we haven't been told what a torn soul *means* or what the consequences are for the living murderer. I don't understand what "Unforgiveable" means, either, and I'm not buying the idea that it means only a life sentence to Azkaban. Whose forgiveness are we talking about, and again, does it matter what spell is used to commit the murder, assuming that intent matters in casting an AK? (Yes, I know. We've gone round and round on that one.) There's no question in my mind that Snape is already suffering a broken *heart,* but I also realize that that belief follows from my interpretation of canon (Dumbledore's Man) rather than from canon itself. I think he'll suffer as no other character we've seen has suffered from the act of murder and that his agony will be self-inflicted. But remorse and agony clearly are *not* the inevitable consequence of a split soul or we'd have seen them in Tom Riddle and Barty Jr. and Wormtail. Surely a person who committed murder would, in such circumstances, never do it again. It would be too much to bear. But these characters, and various other Death Eaters, feel no such reluctance. Their souls are split, but they feel neither remorse nor pain. I'm certain of one thing. Snape is not going to want to come back as a ghost to linger forever near the scene of his worst crime. He'll want to be done with this life once Voldemort is defeated, to go on to the next great adventure, whatever awaits him there. And JKR has given us only the vaguest idea of what lies beyond the veil. In a medieval Christian universe, a repentant Snape would be forgiven. An unrepentant Bellatrix, offered mercy and rejecting it, would not. But this is the Potterverse and JKR's (modern) Christian views only occasionally penetrate it--through, for example, the mercy that Dumbledore extends to Draco near the end of HBP. What this means for Snape, who was far closer to Dumbledore than draco was, I can only guess. Will Snape, who has actually committed "the deed," be extended mercy as well, not by the dead Dumbledore but by some power (Love?) in the Potterverse that we have not yet clearly seen? Will that power see how his life (as Lupinlore so beautifully outlined) has been shaped and ruined by Voldemort (in part, I believe, by the DADA curse and the Unbreakable Vow)? Or is he doomed, whether he repents or not, to remain forever Unforgiven? For me, this is the most important question raised by HBP, followed by the related question of how Harry will learn to forgive. Carol, who dimly and futilely hopes that in the better world brought about by the fall of Voldemort, the redeemed Severus Snape can write an improved Potions textbook and live off his royalties From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Sep 3 20:21:47 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 20:21:47 -0000 Subject: Occlumency redux, redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139452 JKR on Occlumency: > "Harry's problem with it was always that his emotions were too near > the surface and that he is in some ways too damaged. But he's also > very in touch with his feelings about what's happened to him. He's > not repressed, he's quite honest about facing them, and he > couldn't suppress them, he couldn't suppress these memories. 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?" Nora: > Let's break this apart. Harry has problems with Occlumency > because he's emotionally damaged, and his emotions are too near > the surface. This fits with the problems he had in the attempt to > shut himself off. > However, we immediately get something of a reversal in the > commentary--Harry is actually very *in touch* with his feelings, > he's *honest* about them, and he's not going to repress or > suppress them. Okay, so Occlumency requires emotional repression. > > I'm not a psychologist, but it struck me that connecting emotional > repression to this magical skill puts a very decidedly negative > spin upon it. Jen: From the facts JKR gives about the process of Occlumency, being 'in some ways too damaged' should actually be a *bonus* for learning Occlumency. I think what she's saying is that Harry's damage, i.e., losing his parents, living with the Dursleys, etc., actually caused him to be *less* repressed, more in touch with his emotions and more able to express them. That would be less likely to happen in the RW, as denial and repression are pretty common coping devices under stress and it's much more common to 'shut down' emotions in an attempt to deal with them. Over-emoting might be seen in some people, but it doesn't indicate a person with genuine emotional health, and JKR doesn't seem to be saying Harry is over- emoting at any rate. So I'm taking this to be a JKR assessment of Harry from a WW perspective. That maybe the magical, resilient gene somehow enabled him to have a certain psychological 'wholeness' about him that wouldn't be a Muggle response. And my cynical view is that JKR needs this to be so for her story . She needs Harry to be the antithesis of Voldemort, since Riddle represents a person who split off his feelings to the point of being a serial murderer in response to his own abandonement & neglect. And, even worse in JKR's world than splintered emotional health, he was willing to splinter his *soul*. It really seems clear after OOTP, and espcially now after reading about Riddle's life in HBP, that JKR isn't paying so much attention to emotional health in the WW as 'soul-health'. As such, it pretty much absolves many of the characters from the ways they hurt each other emotionally. As long as they aren't causing each other tarnished souls, the other stuff isn't meant to look as heinous as we would view it in the RW. (Which if true, would negate the idea DD begged Snape to 'murder' him and split his soul. That doesn't leave out other possibilites, though). Nora: > So it seems pretty clear that two people in canon who can do > Occlumency are not the nicest people in the world (although they > may yet end up with the white hats), but more importantly, are > both emotionally unhealthy, and quite possibly emotionally > dishonest with themselves. Occlumency is discussed as something > that the isolated and cold are good at. Why such a negative spin > on the skill? Jen: I snipped out your analysis of the two characters we see practicing Occlumency because it is so, so nice to have a thread that doesn't mention a certain someone's name (thank you dearly, Nora). My slightly different take on Occlumency, and Legilimency while we're at it, is that this branch of magic might have negative connotations similar to a Parselmouth, especially during Voldemort's reign, because the evil members of the WW have been drawn to learning these skills. We found out from DD in HBP that there are also Parselmouths among the 'great and the good', which was news to me. The fact that Dumbledore is good at Legilimency, and can at least practice Occlumency, (and there's definitely some canon that Lupin can as well) says that a certain amount of emotional detachment IS a prerequsite for learning these skills. But since we now know, from one of JKR's family members no less, that JKR is accused of being somewhat detached at times and Dumbleldore-like, I'm guessing she doesn't view emotional detachment as entirely negative. Definitely not in her leadership characters and in the making of powerful wizards. In the end, the message is your heart can save you, but for the *average* wizard walking around who isn't Harry, emotional detachment isn't entirely negative (more on Harry). Nora: > [Consequently, there's another line which listies have had some > trouble taking at face value--but again, seems absolutely solidly > 100% intended to be taken that way. There's a whole lot of > thematic messiness if you don't, too. Anyone want to discuss > *this* tendency in Rowling, which seems to be increasing in > importance? There are so many things that we've wanted to brush > off as being more complicated (in past books) that are turning > into things intended to be taken whole and at face...] Jen: [Without wanting to start another thread, I'll just say for myself that I read too much into JKR's 'clues'. I read much more meaning into them than we see in actual print...] Nora: > Contrary to Snape's 'instructions' at the end of the book, I don't > think Harry needs Occlumency at all. *Especially* not the kind of > Occlumency Snape is good at. In fact, a Harry eminently capable > of Occlumency might be a Harry cutting himself off from what he > really needs to have access to in order to win this battle. [I > submit that there's still room for my more genteel theory of > Occlumency out there, but we do now know why Snape is good at it, > and why his teaching method would never really work for Harry.] Jen: I agree with you here and find it odd Dumbledore didn't inform Snape of this fact. Or he did and Snape doesn't buy it because it worked for him, or so he thinks. Nora: > I suspect, against my own better inclinations, that the denoument > of the series is going to be emotionally based rather than > intellectually. That is to say, resolution is not going to come > from Harry having figured out that there were all kinds of > irregularities surrounding Dumbledore's death, and piecing > together Snape's actual actions (this is assuming an Innocent! > Snape at the moment). It's more likely, IMO, to come from an > emotional connection and realization, with a potential forgiveness > plot rolled in there. > This, if true, makes a genial mockery of > all our attempts to detail-by-detail work out how Snape is > actually innocent. Which is part of why I think Rowling may well > go for it. Jen: OK, I'll talk about the dreaded Snape for a moment. I think JKR will have to explain a few things surrounding DD's death, or have Hermione, her only mouthpiece left, figure it out. Her stories are plot-driven after all. You've made the case before they become less- so in OOTP and HBP (hope I'm not putting words into your mouth) and I believe that's true, but extrapolating from her own commments, JKR needed to take Harry to certain places and provide certain background exposition before moving on. The end of HBP was very much back to being plot-driven, from the cave scene on, and we're promised a continuation of the Horcrux search in Book 7. Nora: > Heart and empathy and action over calculation and reflection? Seems > to reflect the hierarchy where, like it or not, Rowling values > Gryffindor principles considerably more than Slytherin-associated > ones. So yes, I think that it's going to be some power of Harry's > heart and love and emotion which ultimately carries the day, not his > detective skills or dueling abilities. Not to say that it won't > involve both, but there seems to be a clear hierarchy in the books > which celebrates the former over the latter. Jen: I still think we'll see both, in different parts of the story. The emotional connection and 'heart & empathy over calculation and reflection' will definitely come into play for Harry's defeat of Voldemort. Lily's love sacrifice, Dumbledore's belief in love magic over the kind Voldemort practices, Harry realizing he's now lost his protectors who 'stood in front of him one by one'---all those parts of the story have an emotional resonance which requires an ending of equal emotional resonance. For the Horcrux search, and possibly even a resolution with Snape, not so much. In fact, if the past is any indicator, Harry most likely won't realize Snape's role until he's gone. If Snape truly is going to help defeat Voldemort, for whatever reason, the irony will be Harry can't see that until it's too late. If Snape simply decided he's on Voldemort's side after all, and will be working against Harry, we *really* won't see any type of emotional conclusion between the two except long-awaited justice for Harry who can finally say, "see I told you so." I'm hoping for the former scenario myself. Jen From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Sat Sep 3 20:30:20 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 16:30:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's penance and the meaning of a split soul In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050903203020.96704.qmail@web53303.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139453 SiriuslySnapeySusan wrote: > I'd like to go with the possibility that Snape's soul *was* ripped. > > If you and I are right that DD asked Snape to kill him there > are many people who have a problem with the notion of DD asking > someone to commit murder, of asking a person to do something which > rips his soul. > > Now, I actually happen to think (and I have no canon support, I > know!) that it's possible that a "mercy killing" or a killing > commanded by a superior officer in time of war just might not cause > the soul to rip the way that a cold-blooded murder does. But > assuming the other folks are correct and I'm wrong -- that even this > kind of killing DOES cause the rip -- might it not be that this > horrible thing, this ripping of the soul, is simply the *penance* > Snape is paying for the mistakes he's made? Luckdragon: Assuming that Snape made an unbreakable vow to DD is it not possible that this vow could have been reversed at a future date if both parties agreed to it? If DD knew his death must happen at Snapes hands in order to allow Harry's progression towards his goal? Also who was the third party involved in binding and possibly unbinding the vow between DD and Snape. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bob.oliver at cox.net Sat Sep 3 20:08:48 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 20:08:48 -0000 Subject: Occlumency redux, redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139454 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > > 'Damaged' was JKR's adjective. The modifier was mine, and a bit of > an extrapolation. It seems applicable in some situations, although > not all. > It is certainly interesting to speculate what JKR meant by that quote, and I submit it would be a very fruitful area for someone to explore in a future interview. I doubt, personally, that she had anything very clear in mind. Rather, I think she is only trying to say that Harry has a lot of pain and anger, and inevitably so, as Dumbledore remarks on several occasions. Snape criticized Harry for handing him weapons, which is a sign that the "weapons," i.e. the pain and anger, are there in Harry's mind ready to be used. True, pain and anger are certainly not absolute inhibitions to Occlumency (e.g. Snape), but one can't help but think that they must make it much harder. When combined with Harry's own particular personality, which features an extraordinary emotional honesty and clarity, and his youth, Occlumency becomes very problematic in his case. That, at least, is my current best guess at what JKR's driving for. Nora: > > I'd argue that shutting himself off from his memories, repressing > them (also JKR's word), it may not be something that can be done in > such a scot-free and clean kind of way. I don't know if it's > possible to go "Well, I'm going to repress all of my anger and rage, > but keep my pity vectors wide open." > > > a_svirn: > > It's a pretty big leap you make. Yes, the practice of Occlumency > > requires a certain (high, in fact) degree of detachment, but it > > doesn't mean that it should lead to any "devaluation of human > > beings". Take Dumbledore ? he is adept in both detachment and > > Occlumency, yet he values lives of others and very much so. Let's try to move away from thinking of these traits as necessarily good or necessarily bad. I think JKR is just saying that almost all personality traits can act as two-edged swords. Lupin's self- control, for instance, is a great advantage in the classroom but not much help in dealing with his fellow werewolves. Occlumency, we are told, requires the ability to compartmentalize your emotions. I think we all have plentiful evidence of how this ability in real life can be EITHER a good or a bad thing, and sometimes BOTH in the same person. People with the ability to compartmentalize their minds and emotions have great advantages in some situations. They are often wonderful in a crisis. They are capable of dealing with complex and messy issues in an efficient and effective manner. This person is the surgeon capable of performing swift, efficient triage at the scene of a disaster, balancing pain against logical use of resources. This person is the military leader able to apportion his forces in an effective manner toward a clear goal, balancing casualties against tactical and strategic gains. However, people with the capability of compartmentalizing their emotions are also sometimes guilty of terrible actions. This person is the bureaucrat who applies rules coldly and efficiently without regard for human suffering. This person is the business executive who allows policy to be dictated purely by profit and loss predictions without concern for justice or humanity. Nora: > > But Dumbledore's detachment is *precisely* the cause of many of his > errors, although we may disagree about what they are. For instance, > I suspect that he underestimated the way that the Dursleys would > treat Harry. He's underestimated the depths of Snape's grudges and > enmity: his admission at the end of OotP seems to point to a > realization of that, to some extent. The jury is out, but his > detachment may well have led to his underestimation of Draco in HBP, > and a potential misestimation of Snape. I found this bit, from the > interview, also interesting: > > "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." > And here I think is a very clear example of the double-edge of a particular personality trait. I don't think, actually, that being "detached" is exactly the same as "compartmentalizing your emotions," but the traits are certainly related and have some of the same advantages and drawbacks. Dumbledore's detachment allows him to be calm, collected, tolerant, fair, and unlikely to make major mistakes out of hasty and ill-considered action. However, it also means he can be distant from many of the emotional issues that face other people, and that he can sometime misjudge important sources of human action. I think it is interesting that, in this same interview, JKR says her sister accused her of modeling Dumbledore after herself. This may well be a clue that this is a conscious theme with which JKR is playing. We understand best what is a part of us. We are best able to relate to our own triumphs, and our own blunders. With regard to Harry, he has a very different psychological make-up, and a very different set of advantages and problems. Harry is not detached, and not able to compartmentalize his mind. He cannot master Occlumency, and likely would not make a very good bureaucrat and perhaps not a very good master strategist. However, he is unlikely to ever become isolated, nor is he likely to ever lose sight of the basic emotional wellsprings that drive most of humanity. Harry probably wouldn't make a good Headmaster, he just doesn't have the ability to cooly apprise the bigger picture and to wait patiently and see if situations will work themselves out without interference (which is something a Headmaster, or in our world, a school principal, often has to do if he doesn't want to go bogged down in constant conflict and controversy). However, Harry would probably make a magnificent Auror, Policeman, or Inspector-General, as he has the ability to sum up a dangerous situation and to act decisively and without hesitation, and is unlikely to allow a problem to sink deep roots or get out of control through false optimism, a surfeit of observation and consideration, or an excess of patience. Lupinlore From gbadams_77 at charter.net Sat Sep 3 23:00:02 2005 From: gbadams_77 at charter.net (Bev & Gary) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 16:00:02 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Academic dishonesty. References: Message-ID: <001401c5b0db$8b887730$9e00ab18@livingroom> No: HPFGUIDX 139455 Eggplant says: Harry didn't steal the book, it was given to him by the teacher and if there was more in that book than the teacher knew then so be it. I see no moral obligation for Harry to inform the world that there was graphite in it if he didn't want to, and he didn't want to. He did offer to share the instructions with Ron and Hermione but Ron couldn't and Hermione wouldn't. Beverly replies: And...wouldn't it be up to Slughorn to ask what Harry did to make it such a splendid potion? I would think in a chemistry class (which I think is what the potions class correlates to)the teacher has a *responsibility* to ask such an exceptional student, "How did you do that? Please, share with the class." Instead Slughorn just keeps saying the same thing, that Harry is taking after his mother. In fact, he says it just about every single time we see Harry in potions class and then some. Slughorn goes on and on about how Lily was so adept/instinctive at potions and he even believes Snape wouldn't have been able to do as well: (Page 319 US Hardcover Edition, at Slughorn's Christmas Party where he's talking to Trelawney) "But I don't think I've ever known such a natural at Potions!" said Slughorn, regarding Harry with a fond, if bloodshot, eye. "Instinctive, you know--like his mother! I've only ever taught a few with this kind of ability, I can tell you that, Sybill--why even Severus--" And then to Snape he says: "You should have seen what he gave me, first lesson, Draught of Living Death--never had a student produce finer on a first attempt, I don't think even you, Severus--" So Slughorn just thinks Harry's potion ability is instinct passed on by his mother. Therefore, I would think that a teacher would want to take such a student aside and ask what he/she did *exactly* to warrant such a remarkable potion. That way the whole class, including the teacher, could understand what was done differently (if anything) and have better knowledge about it. I can see other people's reasoning that Harry was being dishonest in keeping the book and not notifying Slughorn about it, but I also think Slughorn bears the greater responsibilty as the teacher and adult to recognize a unique situation and inquire about it. Obviously he should have focused more on teaching and less on networking. Bev. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 21:09:01 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 21:09:01 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty (was "Apologies and responsibility") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139456 > Valky: > The > fact is Harry is a highly skilled potions maker, Snapes notations did > not control his hands his eyes and his ability to discern the stage of > the potion using his own senses. Those things he did himself. zgirnius: I agree entirely about Harry's skills/accuracy in Potions making, they are good. This is why he got an E in the subject on his OWL, IMO. The whole "cheating" argument, though, is that since he had better instructions, he could achieve better results than other students who are even *more* accurate/skilled, but were following less useful instructions. (Note Hermione was doing better than Harry in the first class, until Harry switched to the HBP's instructions, for example.) Valky: > I'd like to add another thought to this. I wonder if the Potion > Recipes in Snapes textbook are the same recipes that he would have > been casting onto his blackboard for the class to follow, had he been > a NEWT potions master. If it were the case, then it is possible that > Hary's potions performance in HBP is actually representative of what > he would always have been capable of with Snape lessons but no actual > Snape in the room sabotaging him every few minutes. I think this might > be a Theory, you know, even Hermione didn't do all so well as usual > without Snape as her teacher, I noticed. zgirnius: I second the motion...I noticed in OotP that Snape always had his instructions on the board, something I might never have noticed, had it not contrasted so with "Wands away, books out! Please read Chapter X, Ignoring Hexes" by everyone's favorite DADA teacher. I wondered why at the time (I mean, is anyone going to forget to bring their book to Snape's class, and if they did, wouldn't that just be the perfect opportunity to be nasty?) I was sure I had my answer the moment I guessed who the HBP was on my first reading of that book. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 21:37:27 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 21:37:27 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139457 > Ladyhawk: > > From what I remember reading in all the books is that the class > were a combination of theory and practical practices. In > Transfiguration and Charms the students were expected to do the > magic in class and also required to do essays on the theories behind > the magic. zgirnius: Thank you! I wish I had remembered this myself...and what are the written parts of the OWLs about? Probably theory as well. I think the reason we do not see more emphasis on this in the books is that 1) it would be boring for us Muggles, mush more so than reading about mishaps in transforming teacups into tortoises, or whatever, and 2) it is not an enthusiasm of Harry's. Had the books been written from Hermione's POV the curriculum might seem to have a lot more emphasis on theory... From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 21:46:10 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 21:46:10 -0000 Subject: Draco's culpability (Was: My doubts about Snape being Evil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139458 > >>a_svirn: > For one thing, the *snippet* of my original post you quoted cannot > even remotely be called a definition. (Definition followed right > after where you snipped.) Nor do I remember any such *definitions* > in the books. > Betsy Hp: Ah. Well, that's why I nutshelled the definition back to you, because I wanted to make sure I was reading your definition correctly. And I snipped because that's what we're encouraged to do. I wasn't trying to twist your words or anything and I apologize if that's what it looked like I was doing. I will say that I think the definition of a "Death Eater" has evolved over the series. > >>a_svirn: > Harry first learns about DE in the World Cap aftermath where they > are termed (by Bill) as "followers and supporters of Lord > Voldemort". Vague and noncommiting. Betsy Hp: Yes, but don't we learn later that those who consider themselves Death Eater's actually bare a mark on their forearms? In otherwords, I'm sure there were Death Eater sympathizers (like those folks who joined in on the muggle torture at the World Cup), but it takes something special to be chosen by Voldemort to bare his mark. > >>a_svirn: > Voldemort himself mockingly calls them "my true family" apparently > quibbling on the Latin sense of the word: `household dependants', > `servants'. (The "family" greeted him grovelling and hailing him > as "Master".) Granted he did say (again mockingly) that they > are "still united under the Dark Mark", meaning "under my banner". > But it is *his* symbol, not theirs. Betsy Hp: I agree. It is Voldemort who decides if you're worthy enough to join his little club. And then he marks you as his. > >>a_svirn: > I would agree however that DE is someone who joined Voldemorte's > side. Like Draco did. Betsy Hp: Draco was certainly excited to be chosen, yes. And I'm quite sure that if Voldemort had offered, Draco would have gladly been marked. In the beginning. However, did Voldemort offer? That's my question. > >>a_svirn: > You know, Betsy, while I admire your passionate defence of > Slytherins and even agree with you on the number of points, I must > say that personal appeals like this cannot be considered as a > strong argument. I don't particularly want to imagine myself a > megalomaniac. Betsy Hp: Well, poo. So much for that approach. I'll add that it was a bit of a rhetorical question. Unless the forced servant has something specific to offer (as Draco, with his gateway to Hogwarts, does) the eager servant is, generally, more reliable. (When I pretend to be a megalomaniac that's generally how I operate, anyway. *insert bwahaha here*) > >>a_svirn: > I do, however, agree with you that we should follow what the books > say. And they say that this particular megalomaniac doesn't care > much about loyalty. He values usefulness. > Betsy Hp: Didn't Barty Crouch go on and on about his loyalty? Didn't Snape have to prove himself loyal? Yes, Voldemort loves to use folks. The Imperious curse and all that. But it's *loyal* followers who get to join the inner circle and bare his mark. Voldemort does tend to use fear to keep that loyalty, which is a weakness, IMO. But he does expect, I think, a certain level of loyalty. > >>a_svirn: > And Voldemort doesn't have to choose between boy who has a family > to threaten and, say, his aunt who would gladly sacrifice her > family. > He has both. Betsy Hp: But was the reluctanct boy considered good enough to join the inner circle and bare the mark of a Death Eater? That's my question. > >>a_svirn: > I don't think that Draco approached Voldemort. > Betsy Hp: I agree! And that was, really, my main point. Draco did not approach Voldemort. Draco did not *ask* to be used. I *do* believe Draco was thrilled beyond measure at being approached and was, at first, eager to prove himself worthy of *becoming* a Death Eater. But, most importantly, Draco was not given an opportunity to choose. That was given to him by Dumbledore on the Tower. And at that point Draco, who finally realized what being a Death Eater really meant, chose to lower his wand. I'm not saying that Draco went into HBP as this perfect little angel. But he does end HBP as someone who's chosen to *not* obey Voldemort and as someone who's been blessed (in effect) by Dumbledore, and as someone who has, by refusing to kill, maintained his innocence. > >>a_svirn: > The DE "family" functions as a sort of a secret society, and > novices are likely to be carefully selected and then "approached". > > Of course, it is not the sort of invitation you can easily refuse. > But it is true not only for Draco but for every DE, expect maybe > from the very first ones, who probably didn't realised from the > start what they were getting themselves into. Betsy Hp: I agree with this too. And I'd catagorize Draco as a novice, or a Death Eater in training at the beginning of HBP. I'm betting (no canon) that killing Dumbledore was the method chosen for Draco to "prove himself worthy". However, since Voldemort seemed to expect Draco to fail, I don't think he was seriously considered as a true Death Eater candidate. [In an aside: I think Bellatrix was hoping to have Draco succeed on his own so she'd receive some of his "glory" as his trainer. But I think she was willing to let Draco die rather than allow Snape to help and gain some glory for himself.] > >>a_svirn: > Do suggest that Draco was under the Imperius? > Betsy Hp: No. Not the actual curse. But, after Christmas, his mother's life was being held hostage to his success. Draco was being forced to act against his will, at this point. IMO, anyway. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > Draco was *preparing* himself to become a Death Eater by shutting > > down compassion, however once he got on the road to becoming one > > he realized he couldn't shut his compassion down so completely.) > > > >>Marianne: > Well, then how do you explain Draco's total lack of concern about > the opal necklace and the poisoned mead? > Betsy Hp: What "total lack of concern"? The boy stopped grooming himself to such an extent even *Harry* noticed. And that was only after the necklace incident. I think it's also telling that Draco put both attempts into action at around the same time and then stopped using those methods. If he was so unconcerned, why didn't he desperately try poison, etc., again? Especially as the end of the school year (and consequently, his mother's execution) approached? > >>Marianne: > To me, Draco didn't give a fig who might have died on the way to > his killing of Dumbledore. They were all collateral damage, which > seems to fit in quite nicely with the DE code of conduct. Betsy Hp: And yet, IMO, it's obvious that Draco *does* care. He brings them up when Dumbledore first says, "you are not a killer" (585). And it can't be that he's bragging. Draco realizes (as does Dumbledore) that both of those attempts are rather pathetic. But he certainly recognizes that two people nearly died because of him. That's why he tries to refute Dumbledore's statement. And, to me, that indicates a certain amount of guilt. > >>Marianne: > IMO, JKR *has* said it in the books - Draco is quite capable of > killing anyone who gets in his way, as long as he doesn't have to > actually look at them while he kills them. OTOH, he doesn't have > the balls to actually kill someone face-to-face, so maybe he > really isn't quality DE material. Betsy Hp: I guess Draco and Harry can hang out then. Two ball-less boys, both not so hot on the face to face killing thing. For me to see Draco as a heartless long-distance killer I'd really need a body. And an explination as to why Draco gave up the long- distance killing thing so early into his attempt. Oh, and also why Dumbledore described him as "not a killer" and an innocent. (How is JKR telling us that Draco is a killer again? ) Betsy Hp From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 22:31:49 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 22:31:49 -0000 Subject: Weasley Spy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139459 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > And it occurred to me that perhaps one of the Weasleys is a spy > > for Voldemort. > > > >>Jen: > Ding, ding, ding ding!!! Charlie's the winner here in my mind. > The least conspicuous, supposedly off in another country but we > don't know for sure. Must know the 12 uses for dragon's blood, can > control dragons...suspicious. Betsy Hp: The one thing going against Charlie as the spy, IMO, is that he *is* so absent. So the gut punch of a Weasley betrayal won't hit as hard. > >>Betsy hp: > > Molly Weasley: I don't think she's cunning enough to be a spy, > > frankly. And Voldemort killed her two brothers, so it's > > personal for her. However, what if Voldemort threatened her > > family? Would Molly cave into that sort of pressure? > >>Jen: > Betsy! Did you write this post just to be able to savor the > possibility of Molly going to the Dark Side?!? Hee. Many people > will love this one. Betsy Hp: Heh. Maybe just a little? Seriously though, I really do think Molly is lacking in the cunning department. (See her oh so subtle dig at Hermione in GoF.) I think even if she *was* blackmailed by Voldemort she'd fall too completely apart to be of much use. > >>Jen: > You know what? I really hope Harry will discover a person defying > Voldemort who is working alone, outside the Order. Someone with a > personal agenda, an axe to grind, maybe even gone round the twist > a bit obsessing about revenge on Voldemort. Even better if we know > that person already, and a woman would be cool: McGonagall, > Sprout, Hooch etc. Betsy Hp: And see? I really like the idea of McGonagall being a Voldemort plant. Why oh why do I want one of the good guys to turn out to be evil? Maybe I think Harry's a bit too rash and stubborn in his lighting-fast assesments of people's character and so would like his world-view to get shaken up a bit. It'd do the boy some good. As for the "gone round the twist" maverick fighter... Well, there's always Stubby Boardman. Maybe Regulus *didn't* die. (Of course that would blow the whole, "we know them and they're a woman" thing.) > >>Jen: > Turning Arthur would be even bigger than Molly. One of JKR's > only fathers who is actually alive AND good at the same time. She > needs to keep this token father on the good side. Betsy Hp: Agreed. Honestly, for the bangy-ness, I think the ESE!Weasley would need to be a peer of Harry's. Yup! That's where I'm going with this. (If I can't have the mother, I'll take one of her lovely boys! Mwahaha.) > >>Jen: > The U-No-Poo signs are a little odd, as well as the Peruvian > darkness powder being involved in the DE break-in. Wheezes seems > to be one of the few fully-functioning businesses in Diagon Alley > at the moment, and the twins said their products are helping the > Ministry. So why haven't they been targeted by the DE's? Hmmm. I'm > going to chalk it up to greed and say they are paying off the DE > mafioso patrolling Diagon Alley, but nothing more than that. Betsy Hp: Ahh, but you can't just dip your toe in the water. The slope is *much* too slippery for that. Oh yes, one of the twins is evil! Seriously, it is incredibly weird to me that the twins have not been taken out. They've practically put an engraved invitation on their door. Plus there's that whole war profiteering wiff going on. (Did anybody else find their brand new jackets at Dumbledore's funeral a tad distasteful?) Everyone else is barely hanging on and they're thinking of expanding? And isn't it interesting that they were in Hogsmeade while there was Death Eater work afoot. Something fishy is definitely going on. Betsy Hp, who's suddenly worried for Ron (maybe Percy will save him?) From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 22:41:11 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 22:41:11 -0000 Subject: Draco's culpability (Was: My doubts about Snape being Evil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139460 I noticed that in my precious post I wrote "Snipper's end" instead of Spinner's. Talk about Freudian slips Betsy HP wrote: > I will say that I think the definition of a "Death Eater" has > evolved over the series. a_svirn: This would be the right place to elaborate and specify just *how* this definition evolved. > Betsy Hp: > Yes, but don't we learn later that those who consider themselves > Death Eater's actually bare a mark on their forearms? In > otherwords, I'm sure there were Death Eater sympathizers (like those > folks who joined in on the muggle torture at the World Cup), but it > takes something special to be chosen by Voldemort to bare his mark. a_svirn: This is the second time you quote this episode in our discussion and since you never answered my counterargument I'll cite it again. The episode you obviously have in mind reads as follows: "A crowd of wizards, tightly packed and moving together with wands pointing straight upward, was marching slowly across the field. Harry squinted at them. . . . They didn't seem to have faces. . . . Then he realized that their heads were hooded and their faces masked. More wizards were joining the marching group, laughing and pointing up at the floating bodies. Tents crumpled and fell as the marching crowd swelled. Once or twice Harry saw one of the marchers blast a tent out of his way with his wand. Several caught fire. The screaming grew louder." You interpret these "more wizards" as *unmasked* persons from the crowd who decided to join the fun. I find it unlikely. It would be foolhardy if not downright suicidal to join the DE marsh in the full view of the ministry officials. Especially since the marchers offensive actions were aimed not only at the muggle Robertson family, but also at the fellow-wizards (tents that caught fire). It's more likely that more *masked* marchers joined the group. > Betsy Hp: > Draco was certainly excited to be chosen, yes. And I'm quite sure > that if Voldemort had offered, Draco would have gladly been marked. > In the beginning. However, did Voldemort offer? That's my question. a_svirn: In other words you agree that as Draco was concerned his choice was made at the beginning of HBP. But since we cannot be sure that Voldemorte deemed him worthy, we cannot be sure that he was a DE. But this kind of argument renders all your previous eloquent defense of Draco unnecessary. What does it matter if he was nothing but Voldemorte's pawn and his family was threatened? It's the mark that makes a Death Eater. > Betsy Hp: > Didn't Barty Crouch go on and on about his loyalty? Didn't Snape > have to prove himself loyal? a_svirn: Well, it was Barty who harped about his loyalty, not Voldemort. And both he and Bella are somewhat deranged. As for Snape, no, he wasn't. He tried to prove himself *useful* while *openly* stating that his loyalty wavered after Vlodemorte's downfall. (Compare to Lucius, who unsuccessfully tried to appear loyal in the graveyard episode). > > Betsy Hp: > But was the reluctanct boy considered good enough to join the inner > circle and bare the mark of a Death Eater? That's my question. a_svirn: Well, you yourself acknowledged that Draco was far from reluctant from the beginning. And what does it mean "inner circle"? I seem to remember only one circle in the Graveyard. > Betsy Hp: Draco did not > approach Voldemort. Draco did not *ask* to be used. I *do* believe > Draco was thrilled beyond measure at being approached and was, at > first, eager to prove himself worthy of *becoming* a Death Eater. a_svirn: I don't understand this logic. Since Draco did not decline the honor, but was on the contrary "trilled" to become Voldemorte's servant, it follows that he *asked* to be used. That's what being servants is about. Betsy HP: > But, most importantly, Draco was not given an opportunity to > choose. That was given to him by Dumbledore on the Tower. a_svirn: Yes, because Dumbledore is a great believer in *second* chances. That's what he was doing on the Tower ? giving Draco his *second* chance. From fabian.peng-karrholm at chalmers.se Sat Sep 3 21:29:45 2005 From: fabian.peng-karrholm at chalmers.se (Fabian Peng Krrholm) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 23:29:45 +0200 Subject: Missing Horcruxes & Harry's Protection from Lily In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <431A15C9.1080209@chalmers.se> No: HPFGUIDX 139461 > > >Janet: >I think you're right about Sirius' brother taking the locket, but I don't >think the locket was destroyed. Remember the locket at 12 Grimmauld Place when >the OOP was cleaning up the place? The one no one could open? > I don't think that this locket is the one, since there's no mentioning of the any markings on the locket. The Locket in question is supposed to have the Slytherin Snake on it, and I hope and think they would pay a little more attention to a locket with such an evil brand on it, especially if it can't be opened. /Fabian From muellem at bc.edu Sat Sep 3 23:01:40 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 23:01:40 -0000 Subject: Missing Horcruxes & Harry's Protection from Lily In-Reply-To: <431A15C9.1080209@chalmers.se> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139462 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Fabian Peng K?rrholm wrote: > I don't think that this locket is the one, since there's no mentioning > of the any markings on the locket. The Locket in question is supposed to > have the Slytherin Snake on it, and I hope and think they would pay a > little more attention to a locket with such an evil brand on it, > especially if it can't be opened. > > /Fabian well...since there are so many things in the Black House that had snake stuff on it(remember how detailed that chapter was when Harry entered the house - snakes on doorknobs, snakes on the candleholders, snake chandliers,etc), I think by the time that scene rolled around, it *was* not out of the ordinary anymore to see snake markings on a locket. I think that was purposely left out. I can see that by this time, no one notices these things anymore, because snake markings are ALL over the place. The important thing we were supposed to note was that the locket couldn't be opened. colebiancardi (who does like snakes....but thinks the Black's went overboard with that theme) From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 23:04:10 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 16:04:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Missing Horcruxes & Harry's Protection from Lily In-Reply-To: <431A15C9.1080209@chalmers.se> Message-ID: <20050903230410.73560.qmail@web53115.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139463 Fabian wrote: The Locket in question is supposed to have the Slytherin Snake on it, and I hope and think they would pay a little more attention to a locket with such an evil brand on it, especially if it can't be opened. Juli: Why is the S (as in Slytherine) an evil brand???? Juli Aol: jlnbtr Yahoo: jlnbtr --------------------------------- Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From MadameSSnape at aol.com Sat Sep 3 23:10:48 2005 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 19:10:48 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's penance? (was: Opposite of a Horcrux/Interesting ... Message-ID: <193.474389a9.304b8778@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139464 In a message dated 9/3/2005 12:06:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net writes: Now, I actually happen to think (and I have no canon support, I know!) that it's possible that a "mercy killing" or a killing commanded by a superior officer in time of war just might not cause the soul to rip the way that a cold-blooded murder does. IIRC my medieval history studies, the Church didn't think so. I seem to recall that the Church sanctioned the coup de grace for a wounded knight, if only by turning a blind eye to it. (I could be wrong in my remembrance - it's been a while.) Sherrie (who happens to be among those who believe it was a coup de grace) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 23:34:17 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 16:34:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Academic dishonesty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050903233417.90187.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139465 -- justcarol67 wrote: > ...Young Severus > Snape deserved the highest possible marks in Potions because he > understood both the theory behind potion-making (which Hermione is > learning but Harry isn't) and how to apply it successfully (which > Hermione may be on her way to learning but Harry is not). If he > were > to continue in this vein for another year and then take his Potions > NEWT, his ignorance of potion-making and the principles behind it > would be exposed, along with his less than honest method of > acquiring > those marks. He has learned nothing. There is no possible way he > could > reproduce those results (unless you count the bezoar) on his own. > He > is being rewarded for Severus Snape's knowledge and creativity, not > his own. To argue that he deserves the same high marks as the > person > who invented the improved potions makes no sense at all. It's like > saying that Lockhart deserves credit for writing his textbooks. The > only difference is that Harry hasn't modified anyone's memory in > order to claim their ideas as his own. And there's another point I'd like to add to Del's and Carol's. What if you were a member of the Order and you knew that Harry was key in the ultimate defeat of Voldemort. Let's assume you neither like nor dislike Harry one way or the other, and you have no incentive to cut him any slack. Would you think something like this: "This is the kid who is going to defeat the Dark Lord, who's going up against one of the most powerful wizards of the past century, a wizard who takes no prisoners and doesn't hesitate to use any and all powers at his disposal to win. This kid is taking credit for work not his own, is not developing his skills, isn't progressing as a wizard. It's occlumency all over again. How on earth - with this slacker attitude - is this kid going to prevail over Voldemort?" Nor do I find Hermione's attitude unsympathetic. She's not jealous of the unknown Prince, but she's a mite ticked that Harry - after years of cheerfully accepting her help with a variety of subjects - has now taken up with a new study aid and feels safe enough to openly blow her off. Magda ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Sat Sep 3 23:46:19 2005 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 00:46:19 +0100 (BST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: An (interesting ?) parallel/ My doubts about Snape being Evil Message-ID: <20050903234619.53233.qmail@web86208.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139466 dumbledore11214 wrote: > Irene: > >>Yes, right after the battle ends. Or right after Harry >>stops insisting on his right to keep his mind wide >>open for Voldemort, whichever comes first. > > > Alla: > > OK, I am REALLY happy to hear it. I was afraid that you subscribe to > the idea that Snape is so damaged that he should be excused from any > responsibility for his actions. No, not at all. I think the confusion results from the fact that this war just lasts too long. If after Snape had come to Dumbledore with his defection, Dumbledore would've been able to get rid of Voldemort the next day, things would have been so much more neat. Then Dumbledore could demand from Snape to change his attitude, apologise to Harry and what not. However, they are still at war, and Snape's position in this war requires some psychological ambiguity. It's not a good time to deal with anybody's hurt feelings. Yes, I include Snape in that statement as well. Obviously Dumbledore agrees, witness his behaviour in PoA. :-) >>To bring it back to Hogwarts, if Dumbledore accepted >>Snape's defection from Voldie under condition that >>Snape will devote his life to repaying that debt, I >>guess Snape would have rather committed suicide there >>and then, because that's would not be life anyway. > > Alla: > > I am afraid I don't understand. You were arguing in your original > post that just as Aslan forgave Edmund, Snape needs to be forgiven, > right? > > Well, I was responding that IMO Snape has wronged Harry SO badly that > IF he is sorry indeed, I expect him to behave differently. But that's what I'm saying above - it was different for Edmund, he was firmly back on the side of light, so he could afford to behave differently. Snape can not. It may well be that he is not able to, or would not want to, but we can't tell really, because we've never observed him without that limitation. > > I am afraid I don't get your analogy about the couple either. Are > you thinking of Snape and Harry or Snape and Dumbledore? More of Snape and Everybody He'd Wronged While Serving Voldemort. :-) If Dumbledore tried to enforce "you have to be very humble around these people for the rest of your life", I think Snape would rather end his life here and now. Irene ___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 00:03:13 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 00:03:13 -0000 Subject: Draco's culpability (Was: My doubts about Snape being Evil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139467 > >>a_svirn: > This is the second time you quote this episode in our discussion > and since you never answered my counterargument I'll cite it > again. The episode you obviously have in mind reads as follows: > > You interpret these "more wizards" as *unmasked* persons from the > crowd who decided to join the fun. I find it unlikely. It would be > foolhardy if not downright suicidal to join the DE marsh in the > full view of the ministry officials. Especially since the marchers > offensive actions were aimed not only at the muggle Robertson > family, but also at the fellow-wizards (tents that caught fire). > It's more likely that more *masked* marchers joined the group. Betsy Hp: And yet, Harry was able to watch people laugh. Since it was at a distance and there were people screaming, etc., I doubt he *heard* them laughing. So they must have been un-masked in order to take part in the fun. Yes, it was foolhardy, but that's pack behavior for you. It happens in RL all the time. Folks go mad in front of police and cameras and what all because they've let go of reason and joined with the crowd. Am I missing your point? I swear I'm not doing it on purpose. I do think there are levels to Voldemort sympathizers. I think they run from those who agree with the over-all Death Eater philosophy but dislike the violence, to those who'll help anyone strewing a bit of chaos around, all the way up to those who swear allegiance to Voldemort and receive his mark. > > Betsy Hp: > > Draco was certainly excited to be chosen, yes. And I'm quite > > sure that if Voldemort had offered, Draco would have gladly been > > marked. In the beginning. However, did Voldemort offer? That's > > my question. > >>a_svirn: > In other words you agree that as Draco was concerned his choice > was made at the beginning of HBP. Betsy Hp: No. Draco wasn't given the choice. If Voldemort had given him one I think he would have chosen to join, but Draco wasn't given a chance to choose. Not by Voldemort. > >>a_svirn: > But since we cannot be sure that Voldemorte deemed him worthy, we > cannot be sure that he was a DE. Betsy Hp: We *know* Voldemort doesn't see Draco as worthy. We're told this in Spinner's End. Draco is being used to punish his father, maybe shake Dumbledore up a litte. But he has not been chosen as a "worthy servant". He's been chosen as a tool. And he has no say in the matter. > >>a_svirn: > But this kind of argument renders all your previous eloquent > defense of Draco unnecessary. What does it matter if he was > nothing but Voldemorte's pawn and his family was threatened? It's > the mark that makes a Death Eater. Betsy Hp: Even if Draco *does* have the mark he still didn't *choose*. He is not a volunteer. I doubt he's got the mark, because Voldemort expected him to die and I suspect the mark is something to be honored. That was my argument. But it certainly doesn't make Draco lack of choice moot, IMO. > > Betsy Hp: > > But was the reluctanct boy considered good enough to join the > > inner circle and bare the mark of a Death Eater? That's my > > question. > >>a_svirn: > Well, you yourself acknowledged that Draco was far from reluctant > from the beginning. And what does it mean "inner circle"? I seem > to remember only one circle in the Graveyard. Betsy Hp: That *was* the inner circle. Voldemort's chosen elite. It's not a literal circle. Usually. And Draco obviously becomes reluctant. Hence the "we'll kill you and your family too" stuff. > >>a_svirn: > I don't understand this logic. Since Draco did not decline the > honor, but was on the contrary "trilled" to become Voldemorte's > servant, it follows that he *asked* to be used. That's what being > servants is about. Betsy Hp: No, Draco was not given a choice. Draco was excited (or gave the appearance of being, I don't want to assume too much) to be chosen, but the very nature of being chosen precludes Draco making the choice. It was Voldemort's choice, not Draco's. That's what being a pawn is all about. > >>Betsy HP: > > But, most importantly, Draco was not given an opportunity to > > choose. That was given to him by Dumbledore on the Tower. > a_svirn: > Yes, because Dumbledore is a great believer in *second* chances. > That's what he was doing on the Tower ? giving Draco his *second* > chance. Betsy Hp: Draco was never given a chance to choose. Never. HBP makes it absolutely clear that Voldemort wanted to punish Lucius and so he chose to send Lucius's son to his death. Either at Dumbledore's hands (bonus for Voldemort) or at Voldemort's hands Draco was chosen to die. That was the entire point of Voldemort's task when Narcissa showed up at Snape's door. Yes, Draco bought the story given him by his Aunt (and possibly Voldemort -- I wonder if he did all this in person?). But he was without options at this point. If Draco had protested from the beginning, his mother would have been held hostage from the beginning. Any sense of choice on Draco's part would have been pure illusion. Draco finds this out sometime around Christmas. That's when the gloves came off and Draco realized what he'd been pulled into. It's not until the Tower that any sort of choice is offered. Draco tells Dumbledore, "I haven't got any options!" (591) He's without choice. But Dumbledore, gives the freedom to choose back to Draco. Once Draco *is* free to choose, he chooses to not kill. It's not a second choice. It's not even a second chance. It's Draco's first chance and it's his first time to choose, and he chooses not to kill. Betsy Hp From mt3t3l1 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 00:05:59 2005 From: mt3t3l1 at yahoo.com (mt3t3l1) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 00:05:59 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty. In-Reply-To: <001401c5b0db$8b887730$9e00ab18@livingroom> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139468 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bev & Gary" wrote: > And...wouldn't it be up to Slughorn to ask what Harry did to make it such a splendid potion? I would think in a chemistry class (which I think is what the potions class correlates to)the teacher has a *responsibility* to ask such an exceptional student, "How did you do that? Please, share with the class." Instead Slughorn just keeps saying the same thing, that Harry is taking after his mother. Now Merrylinks: Actually, in a real world college chemistry class, the students would be expected to keep a lab notebook and to record exactly what they did at each step of a particular synthesis. Thus, if one of them deviated from the protocol, it would become obvious after reading that student's lab notebook. (If the steps were not recorded accurately, this would constitute doing a "dry lab" and would, of course, be subject to academic censure.) But for whatever reason, Potions students do not keep a lab notebook and, consequently, Harry cannot be accused of dry labbing. He is simply producing the potion that the teacher requested. Once again, the definition of right and wrong in the Wizarding World may be different from ours. In the Scientific World, however, Harry has done nothing amiss. Merrylinks From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 00:08:49 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 00:08:49 -0000 Subject: Should Snape be forgiven? /Re: An (interesting ?) parallel/ In-Reply-To: <20050903234619.53233.qmail@web86208.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139469 Irene: > But that's what I'm saying above - it was different > for Edmund, he was > firmly back on the side of light, so he could afford > to behave > differently. Snape can not. It may well be that he is > not able to, or > would not want to, but we can't tell really, because > we've never > observed him without that limitation. Alla: OK, Irene, I am very sorry, but I am still not getting what your point is. I am not being sarcastic, I truly don't understand your argument. Yes, it was probably different for Edmund, but why did you bring up the parallel originally, weren't you saying that just as Edmund was forgiven, Snape should be to? If it WAS different for Edmund, doesn't it make the parallel to be irrelevant? Irene: > More of Snape and Everybody He'd Wronged While Serving > Voldemort. :-) > If Dumbledore tried to enforce "you have to be very > humble around these > people for the rest of your life", I think Snape would > rather end his > life here and now. Alla: But why should the people whom Snape wronged be concerned about it? Isn't apologising to THEM what counts the most, not how Snape feels about it? Snape should choose, IMO because if he truly wants forgiveness, he cannot just engage in nasty behaviour towards those whom he wronged, because he poor dear cannot bear to be humble towards those who suffered because of him. If he does not want forgiveness and would rather end his life, well, that is his choice, IMO. But he cannot have his cake and eat it too, IMO. If he indeed striving towards changing his ways, trying to make up for enormous misery he cost Harry ( and probably other people too, but that is just speculation), he should behave totally differently than what he was doing. I don't know if I buy the "war still going on" either, because Voldemort only returned at the end of GoF. Again, I am not saying that Snape should have kissed Harry and hugged him the moment Harry came to Hogwarts. I am just saying that he should have ignored the boy, that is all ( that is of course if some contingency plans had to be made for Voldemort's return - namely for Snape not to be Harry's friend, which I am not convinced at all) But I don't believe that Snape being Harry's enemy was needed for anything - I think that was totally Snape's doing and again, that is not how person who is complicit in death's of the boy parents should behave. It makes me doubt that Snape truly changed his ways. Just my opinion of course, Alla From Sherry at PebTech.net Sat Sep 3 23:43:43 2005 From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 23:43:43 -0000 Subject: Theory and Practice (was: Re: Academic dishonesty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139470 > > Ladyhawk: > > > > From what I remember reading in all the books is that the class > > were a combination of theory and practical practices. In > > Transfiguration and Charms the students were expected to do the > > magic in class and also required to do essays on the theories behind > > the magic. > Amontillada: It reminds me of some of my (U.S.) college classes: the classroom hours might consist of lectures or applied "hands-on" work (e.g. biology labs), while the students were expected to read the textbooks outside of class. Perhaps class and study procedures were structured more along these lines at Hogwarts. > zgirnius: > Thank you! I wish I had remembered this myself...and what are the > written parts of the OWLs about? Probably theory as well. Amontillada: And which member of Harry's class was probably especially strong on this part of the OWLS? Hermione. Throughout the series, we've read time and again about Hermione writing the essays, which Harry and Ron often fudged (writing of student ethics...) Zgirnius > I think the reason we do not see more emphasis on this in the books is > that 1) it would be boring for us Muggles, mush more so than reading > about mishaps in transforming teacups into tortoises, or whatever, and > 2) it is not an enthusiasm of Harry's. Had the books been written from > Hermione's POV the curriculum might seem to have a lot more emphasis on > theory... Amontillada: Two very good points! I notice on them that-- on 1) the part that would be boring for Muggles is the type of study we're used to, while the wizard-specific part is what interests us. When I was a child, I was thoroughly bored by stories that focused largely on classroom events. 2) As I said above, the books have often shown Hermione writing essays, often longer than assigned and in great detail. On the other hand, Harry is often seen at the best (by Hermione as well as others) in situations that require magical action. In fact, their greatest strengths lie in different parts or approaches to magic: Hermione in the understanding of theory behind spells or potions, Harry's in the practical applications of those spells and potions. Amontillada From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 23:22:57 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 23:22:57 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139471 Combined answer to Sherry, Marianne S, Merrylinks, Steve/bboyminn, Valky, Janet, Lupinlore, and finally Eggplant, in that order (no meaning in the order), so if you want to find my reply to your particular post, just jump forward :-) --- Sherry wrote, in message 139410: "I was quite shocked to find that people here considered Harry's use of the handwritten notes in his text book to be cheating." Del replies: It's not the fact that he's using the notes that's a problem for me. It's the fact that he's hiding it, that he's pretending to act without them, that he's pretending that all the ameliorations come from him. Sherry wrote: "I'm an excellent cook, and I rarely take a recipe and follow it exactly. instead, I usually add a pinch of this or that to make it better." Del replies: Well, that's some MAJOR differences between you and Harry here. First, Harry is a good Potion-maker, but not an excellent one, as demonstrated by the fact that he *had* to use the HBP notes to make his potions turn out OK. Left with the original recipes, he couldn't make his potions turn out the right way. Second, Harry didn't make a single modification *on his own*. Unlike you, he never relied on his own instincts and skills to make things better. He did exactly the opposite of what you did: he *stuck* to the recipe. Just a better recipe. Sherry wrote: "So, the rehab counselor asked the teacher, did the things Sherry prepared come out properly? Yes, he said. Well, then, she replied, it doesn't matter how she did it. The results are what matters." Del replies: I agree, in fact. So let's look at the results that Harry got while following the initial recipes: they are poor. The fact that ultimately the potions came out great has very little to do with Harry's skills and creativity, and very much to do with Snape discovering surer ways of making a potion work out. Basically, it's like if you had used a bread mix to make your bread, something to which you just have to add water and put it in the oven, and it always works out fine. What would that say about your ability to actually make bread? Nothing, IMO. Sherry wrote: "There's no way that Snape's method of teaching, waving a wand and directions being written on a board teaches the students anything more about the intricacies of potion making than Harry following the HBP book did." Del replies: I disagree, because you're taking Snape's practical lessons apart from his theoretical lessons. Snape was constantly setting theory essays to his students, in which they had to explain the different properties of ingredients, for example. And when Harry once failed a potion, he had to write an essay explaining why it failed. Sherry wrote: "Hermione was just suffering from sour grapes for being beaten, for once in her life, and by someone she considers intellectually inferior to herself." Del replies: The problem is that Harry IS inferior to her as far as potion-making goes! He doesn't understand the theory at all, he doesn't have the slightest idea of how to prepare potions. Without the HBP book, he's lost! Hermione, on the other hand, understands the theory, the interactions between the different ingredients, and is developing a sense of the art of potion-making. So I find it completely justified that she should be upset at Harry getting better grades than her. Let's compare this to DADA. Can you imagine how Harry would feel if Ron found a one-of-a-kind book that told him how to easily produce a Patronus, and used it in class, and got a better grade than Harry who produced a Patronus the good ol' way? Or if the book told Ron how to produce silent magic without actually learning it the hard way, and Ron got better grades at silent fighting than Harry did? Don't you think that Harry would think that Ron cheated, and that he doesn't deserve to get better grades than Harry who is so much better skilled at DADA than Ron? --- Marianne S wrote, in message 139413: " Had Snape really and fully taught Hermione everything he could, rather than just showing her HOW to make potions while not encouraging her understanding, she probably would have done much better in Slughorn's class." Del replies: For what it's worth, Slughorn doesn't seem to be doing any better. We *never* see him explain to anyone why their potion turned out bad. Even when Ernie took a risk and tried to invent his own potion, Slughorn did not reward his risk-taking at all, by discussing with him what went wrong and what he should have done instead. Very very disappointing in a NEWT class, IMO. --- Merrylinks, I appreciate your input in message 139415, but you are comparing a cooperative professional environment to a competitive academic one, and I personally think that such a comparison is not valid. Even in 6th year, the students at Hogwarts are *not* researchers or even lab workers, they are still only pupils. This is made extremely clear by the fact that Ernie's attempt at original creation was completely and utterly dismissed by the teacher. When Slughorn said "surprise me", he was only asking his students to choose their own potion *in the book*. Nor are the students *ever* asked how a potion could be improved or anything of that nature. Slughorn doesn't even take adavantage of Harry's improvements to explain to the class why the modifications Harry used produced the results they did. Unlike in your lab, learning how to make a potion is the end-all of potion class. Slughorn is not after ameliorations or creativity. We know that because first, he doesn't *ask* for creativity, only for results, and second he doesn't reward creativity when another student tries and fails. The students are not in a cooperative research environment, they are in a competitive one: they compete against each other and against the scale of the perfect potion. This competition is supposed to be fair because all students are supposed to have the same books, the same ingredients, the same time. But it turns out that Harry has access to a book that not only he doesn't share with almost anybody else, but he also keeps secret from the teacher. This is an unfair advantage IMO. --- Steve/bboyminn wrote, in message 139418: "Let's change the scenrio slightly. Let's say that Harry found a nice detailed Potions book at the bookstore or in the library, and brought that to class because he felt it was a more up-to-date and more accurate referecence than a 50 year old text book. Would you still have the same view of his cheating, even if you don't consider it /technically/ cheating?" Del replies: No I wouldn't, for two obvious reasons: 1. If he can find it in the library or in a bookstore, then so (money problems put aside) can everyone else. No more unfair advantage. 2. Slughorn would *know* that Harry is using alternate sources. He wouldn't be misled into thinking that Harry made up all the improvements himself. When Harry adds this or that, Slughorn would just have to take a look at the book, and he would instantly know why Harry did it: "Ah yes, I see you followed So-and-so's recommandation". So Harry wouldn't be getting high praises for something that he didn't do and that almost nobody else can do. --- Valky wrote, in message 139421: "Harry may have separate notations to the other class members, however he still must translate those instructions into manual precision, and accurately manifest the written instructions into real life potion. Without these things, it is highly unlikely that any set of instructions would make any difference. If we are still yet comparing this with a chemistry prac then Harry's skills are most definitely in credit." Del replies: I would agree with you if we didn't know for sure that, when he followed the same instructions as the rest of the class, Harry did not do very well. That's even the reason he chose to try the HBP's notes: because he was getting desperate of making the potion turn out OK. So we *know* that Harry is not extremely good at following a set of instructions. If he were, he would have made his potions turn out quite fine without having to resort to using the HBP's notes. Valky wrote: "I'd like to add another thought to this. I wonder if the Potion Recipes in Snapes textbook are the same recipes that he would have been casting onto his blackboard for the class to follow, had he been a NEWT potions master. If it were the case, then it is possible that Hary's potions performance in HBP is actually representative of what he would always have been capable of with Snape lessons but no actual Snape in the room sabotaging him every few minutes. I think this might be a Theory, you know, even Hermione didn't do all so well as usual without Snape as her teacher, I noticed." Del replies: It's a strong possibility. But it doesn't change the fact that Harry didn't deserve all the praise he got from Slughorn, and that he was competing unfairly against his classmates and knew it very well. --- Janet wrote, in message 139428: "Now, if we are to evaluate the teaching styles and methods of the two teachers, Slughorn does come off better than Snape." Del replies: Not much, as far as I am concerned. * He didn't research the available books to find a better one than the one that was used 50 years ago. * He doesn't seem to intervene much during the lessons to help the students out. He just tells them which potion to make, and then judges the potions at the end of the class. A good teacher, IMO, would make sure that no student gets hopelessly stuck. * He *never* discusses why a potion didn't turn out right. That's my biggest beef with him. He just looks dismissively at those potions that didn't work out, and that's it. Not a word with the students to see if they understand what they did wrong. * He never explains to the class why Harry's potions turned out better. IOW, for all it's worth, Slughorn might as well be sleeping for the entire length of the class! And that's a strong sign of bad teaching in my book. I seem to remember seeing Flitwick and McGonagall, in previous books, going around during the practical exercises, and correcting the students' moves and incantations. They didn't just tell them "practise that charm", and then have them line up at the end of the class and show what they could do. They actually went around and *taught* them what to do. And of course this is *exactly* what Harry did in the DA too, and that's why he was such an effective teacher: because he went around and corrected the other kids. But Slughorn doesn't do any of that, so I don't see him as a good teacher. But at least, he's not nasty :-) --- Lupinlore wrote, in message 139430: "No one at Hogwarts or in the Wizarding World seems very interested in the students learning patterns of thought or theoretical understanding." Del replies: I completely disagree. * The students are systematically given essays about the theoretical aspect of magic. In ALL classes: Potions, Charms, Transfigurations, Herbology, Care of Magical Creatures, Astronomy, hey even in Divination! Diagrams, essays, charts, and what-nots, the students are made to study the theory of their subjects quite thoroughly. Most of the homework they get is theoretical, and they get tons of it. * The NEWT students are also given LOADS of additional books to read. * The teachers *expect* the students to actually study the curriculum outside the class. Slughorn, for example, didn't expand on the Third Law of Whoever, because he assumed the students had all read the books, like Hermione. * And of course, there is such a thing as Theory OWLs and probably NEWTs too... Lupinlore wrote: "All of the classes at Hogwarts are applied classes" Del replies: Agreed, but the classes are only one part of the studies at Hogwarts. Homework is the other part, a very prominent part, and an extremely theoretical too. Lupinlore wrote: "The types of classes that would, logically, be necessary for the liberal and theoretical study of magic are suspiciously absent. To mention just the most basic, since spells are phrased in Latin a theoretical understanding of magic would logically require education in at least the basics of the Latin language. How could you phrase a new spell properly if you don't know the differences among the Indicative (what does something) the Accusative (what something is done to) and the Ablative (what something is done with)? Yet this crucial and necessary subject is completely absent from Hogwarts." Del replies: I've been thinking about that, and I think there's a simple answer to that problem: the basics of Latin are taught to the students as they go along. Whenever a new word comes up, the teacher explains it, and explains why it is in such or such case. And the words that the students are going to need are given to them beforehand. Not to mention that there are probably Basic Latin books in the library, so it's up to the students to go through them if they have a problem. Lupinlore wrote: "In short, I think that Snape and Slugworth (and McGonagall and Sprout and Hagrid and everybody else on the faculty except Dumbledore) would totally disagree with you. They would say that making a potion that works IS what really matters, and theoretical understanding is at best only of secondary importance -- and probably not important for the average wizard at all." Del replies: And I think they would disagree with you :-) I think they care more about the students understanding what they are doing, and thus being able to reproduce what they've done in class, and being able to improvise when needed, than about them getting it right once in class. Their job is to get the students ready to enter a professional training right away, after all. I doubt St Mungo's, for example, would be happy to have to train someone who doesn't actually know its plants in-depth, but only has a surface knowledge of Herbology. And I doubt the Aurors would want someone who can make Mobilicorpus work but who has no idea how to apply the same charm to another object. Lupinlore wrote: "After all, understanding is something any mere muggle could do. Actually DOING magic, THAT makes a wizard!" Del replies: That makes a stupid wizard, one that won't improve the world he lives in, for sure. What you're saying is equivalent to saying that a computer technician doesn't need to know how electronics work, he just needs to know where to plug the cables. Except that when something that isn't in the books happens, that technician becomes utterly worthless. Lupinlore wrote: "Since we know from JKR that their are no Wizarding universities, at least not in Britain, I suspect that those who want more theoretical knowledge are expected to learn it after graduating from Hogwarts through a combination of independent study and informal apprenticeship." Del replies: That's not at all the way I see things in the Potterverse. But to each his own :-) Lupinlore wrote: "We think in terms of giving people basic understanding and theoretical knowledge, which are then applied to practical problems. However, historically it was much more common to emphasize practical skills first and foremost, the idea being that relatively few people would ever have the need, or the ability, to learn the "advanced" ideas that lay behind applied techniques." Del replies: Except that we know that Hogwarts is supposed to prepare the kids for ALL magical avenues they might choose upon graduation. Whether they want to stay at home, or become Aurors, Healers, bus drivers, or Dark Lords, they MUST have learned the bases at Hogwarts, and they will learn the details after graduation. So it seems pretty clear to me that Hogwarts is where the kids learn the theory and the general bases of magic, and then they go on learning the more applied skills. --- Eggplant wrote, in message 139436: "In our world a good chemistry professor would praise a student to high heaven who went to the library and found a little known method to perform an experiment that was superior to the one given in the textbook." Del replies: Yes, he would, because the student would have actually put *work* in his research. But Harry didn't do any of that. Eggplant wrote: "And wasn't there a scene where Slughorn praised a student for adding a bit of peppermint even though it was unconventional?" Del replies: IIRC, that was Harry, thanks to the HBP... Eggplant wrote: "That appears to be true, but I have seen little evidence that any of the students, Hermione included, have much understanding why potions work as they do; certainly just following the crummy instructions in the standard textbook won't enlighten them." Del replies: Hermione at least had an idea of what to do when they had to create that multiple antidote. She knew the principles, she knew the spells, she knew the ingredients and their antidotes. Harry knew none of this. And yes, following instructions can be the very best way to learn some things: when the recipe tells you, "cut the chocolate in little pieces, and put in the microwave for 30 seconds", you immediately learn what microwaving does to chocolate. Granted, this one was obvious, but there are many many things to be learned, whether in cooking, chemistry or potions, simply by following a recipe. Eggplant wrote: "Even if you disagree with my take on it, "pretty disgusted" seems like very strong language to me," Del replies: It might be strong language, but it describes what I feel about it. And if "pretty disgusted" is strong, then I wonder what you would think of horrified, revulsed, appalled, and such niceties. I was disgusted because I didn't expect Harry to cheat simply so he could get good grades and praises. It's lame, IMO, and not at all up to his usual standard. Wew, that was some post... As usual, this is all JMO, of course :-) Del From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Sun Sep 4 00:27:31 2005 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 01:27:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Should Snape be forgiven? /Re: An (interesting ?) parallel/ Message-ID: <20050904002731.58737.qmail@web86206.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139472 dumbledore11214 wrote: > Irene: > >>But that's what I'm saying above - it was different >>for Edmund, he was >>firmly back on the side of light, so he could afford >>to behave >>differently. Snape can not. It may well be that he is >>not able to, or >>would not want to, but we can't tell really, because >>we've never >>observed him without that limitation. > > > > Alla: > > OK, Irene, I am very sorry, but I am still not getting what your > point is. I am not being sarcastic, I truly don't understand your > argument. > Yes, it was probably different for Edmund, but why did you bring up > the parallel originally, weren't you saying that just as Edmund was > forgiven, Snape should be to? > > If it WAS different for Edmund, doesn't it make the parallel to be > irrelevant? My point is - first you win the war, then your make amends. It's different for Edmund because they've ended the war quickly, and he was able to start making amends the very next day. Snape is still in the middle of the war. His character arch is unfinished. The jury is out. My only problem is with position "No, we have enough information to convict, don't bring any more witnesses". > Alla: > > But he cannot have his cake and eat it too, IMO. If he indeed > striving towards changing his ways, trying to make up for enormous > misery he cost Harry ( and probably other people too, but that is > just speculation), he should behave totally differently than what he > was doing. I don't totally agree. He owes Harry an apology, fine. But he does not owe him changing his ways as a strict, mean and sarcastic teacher. > > I don't know if I buy the "war still going on" either, because > Voldemort only returned at the end of GoF. But they've obviously discussed contingency plans before that. The way Dumbledore acts at the end of GoF is nothing short of "OK, remember plan B? Time to implement it". And since the plan included Snape going back to Voldemort, they had to prepare for that plan years in advance. > > It makes me doubt that Snape truly changed his ways. You may well be right. Irene ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Sep 4 01:21:56 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 01:21:56 -0000 Subject: Killing tears the soul apart redux. WAS: Re: Snape's penance? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139473 houyhnhnm: > > > > > BTW, with respect to "killing tears the soul", > > I still maintain that this is *not* canonical, > > if it means that any taking of life (regardless > > of motive or circumstances) damages the soul in some > > irremediable way that lying, bullying, cheating, > > hurting, and hating (committed by so many of the > > characters in the HP books) do not. > > > > I want to see quotations with page numbers. Alla: > Whole story about Tom Riddle creating Horcruxes > is a metaphor, which to me stands for "killing > tears your soul apart" > [...] > I am talking about Harry not letting Sirius > and Remus kill Peter. > [...] > Hary stops it because he thinks that > Remus and Sirius should not be killers > ( or he thinks that James would have thought > so, whatever). houyhnhnm: It has been argued by you and others that Dumbledore could not have told Snape to sacrifice him if it was the only way to save Harry, Draco, and Hogwarts, because Dumbledore would not order Snape to do something that would tear his soul. "Killing tears the soul". I've read that over and over on this board. Not cold-blooded murder for gain or immortality (Voldemort) or hot-blooded killing for revenge (Sirius and Lupin). Any killing for any reason, regardless of motive or circumstances. A blanket statement. I'm asking for evidence that this claim has been made anywhere in the books or interviews. You have not provided it. You can't, because it doesn't exist. From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 01:32:04 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 01:32:04 -0000 Subject: Killing tears the soul apart redux. Luna and sacrifice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139475 Alla: Whole story about Tom Riddle creating Horcruxes is a metaphor, which to me stands for "killing tears your soul apart." So, I would give quotations and page numbers for every time Harry watches the story of Tom's Riddle life. Too many numbers to quote, sorry. :-) I just realised that another very important moment in canon may foreshadow the idea that killing tears your soul apart. I am talking about Harry not letting Sirius and Remus kill Peter. Now, of course Harry has no clue about horcruxes yet, but could be that giving the motivation for his decision as: "I'm not doing this for you. I'm doing it because - I don't reckon my dad would've wanted them to become killers- just for you" - PoA, paperback, p.376. The narrator may foreshadow that Harry is saving Remus and Sirius souls here and prevents them from hurting, splitting. Notice, that this is the killing that many would have called righteous, or at least righteous revenge - Peter certainly committed many sins, IMO, and still Hary stops it because he thinks that Remus and Sirius should not be killers ( or he thinks that James would have thought so, whatever). vmonte: Why did JKR insert Luna into the Harry Potter Saga? At the end of OOTP Harry spent several frantic hours trying to find ways to contact Sirius. He tried contacting him by mirror and by reaching out to Nearly Headless Nick. The Lexicon explains how Harry's method of trying to contact Sirius via Nick, the ghost, is very much in the same vain as people who try to contact the dead via s?ances. In the middle of Harry's grief he bumps into Luna who gives Harry the comfort he seeks. She tells Harry that she knows that she will someday see her dead mother again. It's Luna's "almost Christian belief in an afterlife" that makes Harry feel better (Lexicon quote). Now in the HBP we are told that killing splits the soul. We have seen Voldemort, Peter, Bella, and Snape kill. Alla pointed out that in PoA Harry does not allow Sirius and Lupin to kill Peter because he does not think that his father would have wanted them to become killers. Harry is not aware of soul splitting during PoA but something tells him (rightly) that killing is not right. We all know this to be true, but it is interesting that JKR is already priming us for the idea of soul splitting in HBP. Nora has also pointed to the fact that JKR's statements regarding Occlumency leads her to believe that this skill is not all that it's cracked up to be, and that it takes a certain kind of person to do this. It's important that the person be able to compartmentalize their emotions ? push away their emotions. In other words it's like wearing a mask, putting on a false facade. Nora's comment made me remember this moment in HBP. "I have not asked you to take out your books," said Snape, closing the door and moving to face the class from behind his desk; Hermione hastily dropped her copy of ** Confronting the Faceless ** back into her bag and stowed it under her chair (page 177, The-Half-Blood Prince). I remember this moment because the title of the book also made me think of the faceless chess pieces in SS/PS. So far JKR has only shown DEs (and former DEs) kill. She hasn't shown any Order members killing yet?not even in self-defense. It must mean that she does not think of killing lightly. Defensive spells are ok, but unforgivable curses are inexcusable. (I'm not sure how she will avoid the Order from killing in book 7, unless she is planning on some kind of Karmic justice where those that kill for the good side also die while saving another.) We also know that there is a lot of Lily in Harry. She seems to have been a loyal, brave, and caring person. Her big gift to Harry was that she sacrificed herself for his life. We also know that Harry is not afraid of death. At the end of The Order of the Phoenix, during Voldemort's mental assault, Harry asked for it. Harry could no longer endure the pain and he asked to die?his first thought was of Sirius. And it was his love of Sirius that drove Voldemort out of his mind. It seems rather reasonable to assume that in the end, Harry's battle with Voldemort will be similar in nature. Voldemort will try to remove the horcrux from Harry's head, and it will kill him. At some point in time during book 7 Harry will find out what his mother did to protect him and he will understand what he carries inside his scar. Poor Luna! I can see this girl dying midway through the book. Will Harry remember her religious faith in the afterlife and find the resolve to sacrifice himself for the greater good? Yes, I think so. Harry will choose to sacrifice himself for the people he loves. I hope Ginny's experience with DiaryTom has given her some knowledge to save Harry. I hope she comes to his rescue. The scene in the cave with Dumbledore is looking more like a preview of Voldemort's downfall. Vivian http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/luna.html From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 01:37:53 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 01:37:53 -0000 Subject: Draco's culpability (Was: My doubts about Snape being Evil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139476 > Betsy Hp: > And yet, Harry was able to watch people laugh. Since it was at a > distance and there were people screaming, etc., I doubt he *heard* > them laughing. So they must have been un-masked in order to take > part in the fun. Yes, it was foolhardy, but that's pack behavior > for you. It happens in RL all the time. Folks go mad in front of > police and cameras and what all because they've let go of reason and > joined with the crowd. > a_svirn: If they were too distant to be heard, they must have been too distant to be seen. If you ever attended a public meeting, or were unlucky enough to end up somewhere in back rows in a theatre you must have noticed that while it is easy to hear what's going on onstage, facial expressions are difficult to read. Besides, now, after HBP we know for sure, that cursing Muggles is a serious offence (Morfin Gaunt case). Which means that if you were right and the lynch-mob was actually unmasked there would have been a flurry of arrests in the aftermath. Especially, since we know that the MoM and more particularly Fudge would have sized any opportunity to prove to the general public that the Ministry doing their job. > Betsy Hp: > No. Draco wasn't given the choice. If Voldemort had given him one > I think he would have chosen to join, but Draco wasn't given a > chance to choose. Not by Voldemort. a_svirn: I didn't say that Draco "was given the choice". I said that as far as he was concerned his choice was made. Wherein do you see the contradiction? Draco's choice was made, but Voldemorte's was not. (Probably. There is no way you or me can confirm or deny it). > > Betsy Hp: > We *know* Voldemort doesn't see Draco as worthy. We're told this in > Spinner's End. Draco is being used to punish his father, maybe > shake Dumbledore up a litte. But he has not been chosen as > a "worthy servant". He's been chosen as a tool. And he has no say > in the matter. a_svirn: I didn't say that he was chosen (or rather I didn't say that he wasn't chosen) a "worthy servant". How one can be chosen a "worthy servant"? What I said was that ? according to you ? he might not have been deemed worthy to be a servant. > Betsy Hp: > Even if Draco *does* have the mark he still didn't *choose*. He is > not a volunteer. I doubt he's got the mark, because Voldemort > expected him to die and I suspect the mark is something to be > honored. That was my argument. But it certainly doesn't make Draco > lack of choice moot, IMO. a_svirn: Now you have me totally baffled. First you say that "Draco was "excited to be chosen" and "would have gladly been marked", but it doesn't matter, because Voldemorte wasn't interested and didn't mark him. Now you say that even had LV been interested it wouldn't have mattered because Draco didn't volunteer. Simultaneously you are agreeing with me that it is actually impossible to "volunteer" to join a secret society. So what *would* make Draco a DE, if his eagerness and the Mark itself don't really matter? > Betsy Hp: > That *was* the inner circle. Voldemort's chosen elite. It's not a > literal circle. Usually. And Draco obviously becomes reluctant. > Hence the "we'll kill you and your family too" stuff. a_svirn: There was one very literal circle in the Graveyard. I wouldn't call a bunch of groveling servants "elite", though. Besides "elite" implies that DE are cr?me de la cr?me of Voldemorte's servants, so to speak, while there are others who are just plain foot soldiers. There seem to be no "canon" to support such a view, though. As for Draco how it is "obvious" that he was reluctant? He did make two attempts at Dumbledore life. He wasn't reluctant, he was *obviously* inefficient. Far more serious offence from LV's point of view. > > Betsy Hp: > No, Draco was not given a choice. Draco was excited (or gave the > appearance of being, I don't want to assume too much) to be chosen, > but the very nature of being chosen precludes Draco making the > choice. a_svirn: No, it does not. It only means that Voldemorte has made his choice and now it's Draco's turn. A bit like marriage proposal, really. One may agree or decline, but once the vows are taken it's "until the death do us part". >> Betsy Hp: > Draco was never given a chance to choose. Never. HBP makes it > absolutely clear that Voldemort wanted to punish Lucius and so he > chose to send Lucius's son to his death. Either at Dumbledore's > hands (bonus for Voldemort) or at Voldemort's hands Draco was chosen > to die. a_svirn: There is absolutely no reason to suppose that LV would kill Draco if he succeeded. And I don't see how "LV wanted to punish Lucius through Draco" and "Draco wasn't given a choice" follow one another. Something is missing here. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 01:39:57 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 01:39:57 -0000 Subject: Killing tears the soul apart redux. WAS: Re: Snape's penance? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139477 > houyhnhnm: > > It has been argued by you and others that Dumbledore could not have > told Snape to sacrifice him if it was the only way to save Harry, > Draco, and Hogwarts, because Dumbledore would not order Snape to do > something that would tear his soul. "Killing tears the soul". I've > read that over and over on this board. > > Not cold-blooded murder for gain or immortality (Voldemort) or > hot-blooded killing for revenge (Sirius and Lupin). Any killing for > any reason, regardless of motive or circumstances. A blanket statement. > > I'm asking for evidence that this claim has been made anywhere in the > books or interviews. You have not provided it. You can't, because it > doesn't exist. Alla: Well, first of all, I said several times that to me killing in self defense is excusable. Secondly, I did provide the evidence, but you interpret them differently. It is your right, but it does not mean that I have not provided it. To me everything that had been said in HBP about Tom Ruiddle screams that killing is not OK. Does it mean that according to Potterverse rules any killing is not OK? Yes, it seems very likely to me, not hundred percent likely, but very likely. Why? Because any killing which I had read about in potterverse so far was not justified yet. You name it - murder of Potters, Sirius death, death of twelve muggles by Peter, murder of Amelia Bones, Evelyne Vance,etc, etc. In fact, if you could provide an evidence of ANY killing in Potterverse, which was deemed OK by the narrator, I would be very surprised. Even the wording used for Dumbledore and Grindelwald says "DD defeated Grindelwald", not killed him. So, I can also argue that there is no evidence in the books that killing is OK. And even though as I said earlier I would consider Harry killing Vodelmort to be totally self-defense, I don't think that Harry will kill him. JMO, Alla. From ms-tamany at rcn.com Sun Sep 4 01:57:40 2005 From: ms-tamany at rcn.com (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 21:57:40 -0400 Subject: Killing tears the soul apart redux. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <431A1C54.11043.A2F3A5@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 139478 On 4 Sep 2005 at 1:21, houyhnhnm102 wrote: > It has been argued by you and others that Dumbledore could not have > told Snape to sacrifice him if it was the only way to save Harry, > Draco, and Hogwarts, because Dumbledore would not order Snape to do > something that would tear his soul. "Killing tears the soul". I've > read that over and over on this board. > > Not cold-blooded murder for gain or immortality (Voldemort) or > hot-blooded killing for revenge (Sirius and Lupin). Any killing for > any reason, regardless of motive or circumstances. A blanket statement. > > I'm asking for evidence that this claim has been made anywhere in the > books or interviews. You have not provided it. You can't, because it > doesn't exist. Okay, page number and edition and all that. American hard cover edition, chapter 23, 'Horcruxes', page 498, fifth line from the top of the page. Slughorn is discussing horcruxes with young Tom, in the true pensieve memory. "But how do you do it?" "By an act of evil -- the supreme act of evil. By committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart." Right there in black and white, very much canonical. *Killing* rips the soul apart. The act of taking another's life tears your soul apart. Slughorn doesn't say anything about tearing your soul in half, though, nor does he mention extenuating circumstances to the killing. He just states, flat out, that killing rips the soul apart. However, and this is only my opinion and interpretation, souls can *HEAL*, if the torn parts are not separated. The reason horcruxes are such dark magic, IMO, is because using one forever prevents any such healing to occur; the damage to the soul would be irreparable, as the torn pieces are forever kept apart. It would be like if you cut off your arm, or something. With immediate, careful surgery, the arm can be re- attached, and with rehabilitation, you can regain much, possibly all, of the use of it you once had. However, if you cut off your arm and hide it somewhere, that's it, you'll never have your arm back again. Even if, by some chance, you later on try to have the arm re-attached, it's no good -- the arm would be long past saving. My thought is that, while the bit of soul encased within a horcrux would not 'die' as the severed arm would, it would still never be able to be re- integrated into the remaining soul left within you. You would remain a torn, *incomplete* soul, which would be much worse than a once-torn, now-scarred, but *complete* soul. As for killing someone for a good and valid reason, such as defending yourself or your loved ones, or hastening a slow and painful and inevitable or unavoidable death, these would also rip the soul apart. Even so, time and forgiveness (from others and also from yourself) would eventually heal even the most shattered soul. I'm sure that Dumbledore believed this. I still haven't made up my mind about whether or not DD and Snape had ever discussed the possibility that Snape might have to kill Dumbledore, but I do think that, if it ever comes to light that they had discussed that, then Dumbledore would have comforted himself with that belief, that Snape's soul, given time and forgiveness, would heal eventually. I imagine that even Voldemort, having killed more than just six people, I'm sure, would, eventually, have had a whole, though very scarred, soul, had he not turned to horcruxes. Having done just that, though, and having put so many pieces of himself out there, the remaining bits of soul still left within him must be having a very hard time knitting back together. *** Tammy Rizzo ms-tamany at rcn.com What were you in your pants that was still pining over and went to the businessman? -- 'Atlanta Nights', by Travis Tea (chapter 34) From meltowne at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 01:57:45 2005 From: meltowne at yahoo.com (meltowne) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 01:57:45 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139479 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Caius Marcius" wrote: > > Also, I would argue that "good teaching" implies more than simply > fostering warm-fuzzies with the student. Flitwick, for example, seems > to be an excellent teacher who imparts his knowledge with > considerable skill (even if Charms are a soft option). And Flitwick > may very well have built such bonds with other students, who are not > part of the main narrative. > Remember also that the books are for the most part from Harry's perspective - and written for children of his age. When I look back on my high school days, the teachers I would consider the best were not the ones I liked the most. They were the ones that challenged me, and pushed just enough to halp me reach my potential. One of the best was an english teacher I had in 9th grade - I hated his class, and didn't particularly like him at the time. But he was the department head, and knew what he was doing; he usually taught only older kids, so he treated us like them, which we were not prepared for. The teachers are not there to be liked, but to teach. I consider a good teacher to be one who is effective. Most of the Hogwarts staff fits that bill - even Snape to some degree. Many of them probably have one or two students with whom they've developed a strong relationship, it's just that Harry is not aware of them, so neither are we. From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Sun Sep 4 03:06:16 2005 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 19:06:16 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Academic dishonesty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139480 >Del replies: >Let's compare this to DADA. Can you imagine how Harry would feel if >Ron found a one-of-a-kind book that told him how to easily produce a >Patronus, and used it in class, and got a better grade than Harry who >produced a Patronus the good ol' way? Or if the book told Ron how to >produce silent magic without actually learning it the hard way, and >Ron got better grades at silent fighting than Harry did? Don't you >think that Harry would think that Ron cheated, and that he doesn't >deserve to get better grades than Harry who is so much better skilled >at DADA than Ron? This is part of what I see the difference as. I think that if Ron found out how to do something in DADA, Harry would want to know how to do it. He would immediately ask him how it was done and Ron would tell him. Harry and Ron are both interested in end results and they don't seem to be bothered much about where they come from. This is what bugs me about Hermione in this whole sequence. She always HAS been interested in the theory - until HBP. Now, instead of trying to figure out WHY Harry's results are so much better, she simply rejects them immediately. If she were truly interested in learning the theory behind potion making, she would carefully analyze the difference in the directions in her book and in Harry's. It is this CHANGE in Hermione that I don't understand. I think it would have been much more in character for her to look at the changes and say, "I see why that helped. I am going to put that in my book, too. I don't think this bit did anything, but why don't you try using it and I won't and we'll see whether it DOES make a difference." etc., etc. Why was it necessary for Hermione to reject the book? I suppose it made it possible to keep the Sectumsempra curse from her. But that could have been done with some stuck together pages, too. I just feel that it is out of character for her. Laura Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sun Sep 4 03:30:25 2005 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 03:30:25 -0000 Subject: Killing tears the soul apart redux. In-Reply-To: <431A1C54.11043.A2F3A5@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139481 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tammy Rizzo" wrote: > On 4 Sep 2005 at 1:21, houyhnhnm102 wrote: > > > It has been argued by you and others that Dumbledore could not have > > told Snape to sacrifice him if it was the only way to save Harry, > > Draco, and Hogwarts, because Dumbledore would not order Snape to do > > something that would tear his soul. "Killing tears the soul". I've > > read that over and over on this board. > > > > Not cold-blooded murder for gain or immortality (Voldemort) or > > hot-blooded killing for revenge (Sirius and Lupin). Any killing for > > any reason, regardless of motive or circumstances. A blanket statement. > > > > I'm asking for evidence that this claim has been made anywhere in the > > books or interviews. You have not provided it. You can't, because it > > doesn't exist. > > Okay, page number and edition and all that. American hard cover edition, chapter 23, > 'Horcruxes', page 498, fifth line from the top of the page. Slughorn is discussing horcruxes > with young Tom, in the true pensieve memory. > > "But how do you do it?" > "By an act of evil -- the supreme act of evil. By committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart." > > Right there in black and white, very much canonical. *Killing* rips the soul apart. The act of > taking another's life tears your soul apart. Slughorn doesn't say anything about tearing your > soul in half, though, nor does he mention extenuating circumstances to the killing. He first says "murder", and it may be interpreted that he is defining as "killing" only those acts which fall under the definition of "murder." The Sixth Biblical Commandment which is often erroneously translated as "Thou shalt not kill" should actually be rendered as "Thou shalt not murder" - the Hebrew verb "tirsah" which is used in the Mosaic commandment is not one of the common verbs associated with killing an enemy on the field of battle, killing a sacrificial animal, or executing a convicted malefactor (all three of these deeds meet with Scriptural approval when properly conducted) - rather, it is associated with the cold-blooded execution of a personal enemy, or killing for personal gain (as opposed to killing to protect the community). To give a hypothetical example: a sniper who shot innocent unsuspecting bystanders to avenge some percieved personal slight would surely be guilty of murder, and would be (in the Potterverse) tearing his soul as well - the police officer who shot and killed the sniper, however, did so to protect his fellow citizens, and so performed a brave and selfless action, one which would not rend his soul (even though both the police officer and the sniper took a human life). So Harry can "kill" Voldemort, because that is at bottom a selfless act; Voldemort can only "murder" becuase his goals are fundamentally selfish. - CMC From ms-tamany at rcn.com Sun Sep 4 04:47:46 2005 From: ms-tamany at rcn.com (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 00:47:46 -0400 Subject: Killing tears the soul apart redux. In-Reply-To: References: <431A1C54.11043.A2F3A5@localhost> Message-ID: <431A4432.23333.13EB17A@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 139482 I (Tammy Rizzo) said: > > Right there in black and white, very much canonical. *Killing* > rips the soul apart. The act of > > taking another's life tears your soul apart. Slughorn doesn't say > anything about tearing your > > soul in half, though, nor does he mention extenuating circumstances > to the killing. Then CMC said: > He first says "murder", and it may be interpreted that he is defining > as "killing" only those acts which fall under the definition > of "murder." The Sixth Biblical Commandment which is often > erroneously translated as "Thou shalt not kill" should actually be > rendered as "Thou shalt not murder" - the Hebrew verb "tirsah" which > is used in the Mosaic commandment is not one of the common verbs > associated with killing an enemy on the field of battle, killing a > sacrificial animal, or executing a convicted malefactor (all three of > these deeds meet with Scriptural approval when properly conducted) - > rather, it is associated with the cold-blooded execution of a > personal enemy, or killing for personal gain (as opposed to killing > to protect the community). Now I (Tammy Rizzo) say again: I had already known about the more correct rendering of the sixth commandment as being 'thou shalt not murder', but I do find it very interesting, the differences in meaning. I also find it VERY interesting that, apparently, Harry doesn't make any distinction between 'kill' and 'murder'. He takes the Prophecy to mean that he must either be murdered or become a murderer himself. He has not yet, it seems, learned to make such a distintion between cold- blooded, pre-meditated murder, and a 'rightous' killing, such as in defence. It comes across to me as if he consideres it all 'murder'. I wonder if this is JKR's personal view, as well? For myself, though, I can see and accept a difference between killing and murder. Of course, I can also see and accept the worth of execution and/or assassination in general, on the concept of removing the cancer before it kills the body, or removing one dangerous and unstable leader or criminal before the entire area is destroyed by his or her actions. However, my feeling is that, even in the case of 'rightous' killings, sanctioned by law and belief, the act of taking another's life STILL would be extremely wounding to the soul of the person who did it. So, Slughorn may have meant 'murder' instead of 'killing', recognizing that sometimes it becomes necessary, for the greater good, to kill, while it is never necessary, for the greater good, to do murder, or he may have been echoing JKR's sentiments (if that is what she believes), or he may have been stating bald fact, that killing, whatever the circumstances, does great harm to the soul of he who kills. > To give a hypothetical example: a sniper who shot innocent > unsuspecting bystanders to avenge some percieved personal slight > would surely be guilty of murder, and would be (in the Potterverse) > tearing his soul as well - the police officer who shot and killed the > sniper, however, did so to protect his fellow citizens, and so > performed a brave and selfless action, one which would not rend his > soul (even though both the police officer and the sniper took a human > life). An interesting thought to go along with that, though -- assuming the police officer shoots and kills the sniper, even while the sniper is *in the act*, the officer will STILL be required to undergo counseling and occupational therapy, to try to help him cope with what he's done. Even a 'righteous' killing damages the killer. > So Harry can "kill" Voldemort, because that is at bottom a selfless > act; Voldemort can only "murder" becuase his goals are fundamentally > selfish. > > - CMC Exactly. Very succinctly put. Especially if Harry is ever able to let go his thirst for vengeance against Voldemort, and simply remove him for the good of his loved ones instead of for revenge for Harry's losses. The question, to me, is, will Harry ever figure out that distinction, or will JKR keep him blindered to the idea? Hmmm. *** Tammy Rizzo ms-tamany at rcn.com What were you in your pants that was still pining over and went to the businessman? -- 'Atlanta Nights', by Travis Tea (chapter 34) From griffin782002 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 07:44:27 2005 From: griffin782002 at yahoo.com (sp. sot.) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 00:44:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Missing Horcruxes & Harry's Protection from Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050904074427.58563.qmail@web52709.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139483 --- colebiancardi wrote: > well...since there are so many things in the Black > House that had > snake stuff on it(remember how detailed that chapter > was when Harry > entered the house - snakes on doorknobs, snakes on > the candleholders, > snake chandliers,etc), I think by the time that > scene rolled around, > it *was* not out of the ordinary anymore to see > snake markings on a > locket. I think that was purposely left out. I can > see that by this > time, no one notices these things anymore, because > snake markings are > ALL over the place. The important thing we were > supposed to note was > that the locket couldn't be opened. > > colebiancardi > (who does like snakes....but thinks the Black's went > overboard with > that theme) Griffin782002 now: I am not sure, but that locket had the symbol of Slytherin on would have more logical for JKR to mention it? We read the book but we can't "see" what Harry and the others "see", only with our imagination. Unless of course she wanted to tease us and make us create more theories. Griffin782002 ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From finwitch at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 07:43:57 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 07:43:57 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty. In-Reply-To: <001401c5b0db$8b887730$9e00ab18@livingroom> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139484 > Eggplant says: > > Harry didn't steal the > book, it was given to him by the teacher and if there was more in that > book than the teacher knew then so be it. I see no moral obligation > for Harry to inform the world that there was graphite in it if he > didn't want to, and he didn't want to. He did offer to share the > instructions with Ron and Hermione but Ron couldn't and Hermione > wouldn't. > > Beverly replies: > > And...wouldn't it be up to Slughorn to ask what Harry did to make it such a splendid potion? Slughorn goes on and on about how Lily was so adept/instinctive at potions and he even believes Snape wouldn't have been able to do as well: > > (Page 319 US Hardcover Edition, at Slughorn's Christmas Party where he's talking to Trelawney) > > "But I don't think I've ever known such a natural at Potions!" said Slughorn, regarding Harry with a fond, if bloodshot, eye. "Instinctive, you know--like his mother! I've only ever taught a few with this kind of ability, I can tell you that, Sybill--why even Severus--" Finwitch: Well, as I recall, Harry was reading the extra instructions aloud, wasn't he? Hermione objected that the book says counterclockwise. So if Harry ended up as the only one who had better instructions, we can hardly blame Harry. And I find it interesting that, the instructions written by Severus Snape - Ron can't read his notes! Makes me wonder about Neville - was Neville ever able to read what SS had written on the Blackboard? I also find it interesting that when following instructions young SS wrote down, Harry's doing a *better* job than Severus did those days? I find that rather odd. And why did Hermione say it's a woman's writing? Why didn't any of them recognise the hand-writing? WAS it truly SS who wrote them? Makes me think... maybe it *was* Lily who wrote those notes, trying to help young Severus... and Harry could read them because he has Lily's eyes.. Slughorn keeps on about Lily! And I completely agree with Beverly on Slughorn's responsibility. It's even possible he *knew* that book had belonged to Severus'. You know, maybe he even *asked* for it, having *two* E-students coming to need one. I think Ron got to borrow *Slughorn's* old book. As to why Slughorn was so surprised to a Muggle-born Lily's ability-- well, I'd think that many of the so-called purebloods & Half-bloods had old books, including helpful notes... I'd say using notes of old is old policy at Hogwarts. I mean, one could ask i.e. older students in your house, family at home etc. for tips. Permitted resources are not, IMO, limited to books. That's what you'd do in working life, isn't it? If you don't know the answer to a problem, call someone who does. It's practical thinking, not cheating IMO. Finwitch From juli17 at aol.com Sun Sep 4 08:35:38 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 04:35:38 EDT Subject: Sexy Snape? Message-ID: <19c.3af5a229.304c0bda@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139485 vmonte wrote: I know that Snape has multitudes of fans, but I really don't think that JKR is writing books to tell children that they should not trust their gut instincts about people. Wouldn't it be like telling abused children to: 'Shut up, you don't know what you are talking about. Don't you realize that Professor Snape was a DE and still has sadistic tendencies? Of course it's in his nature to be abusive, just take it! Grow up already! Let Snape be a deeply horrible person. And what's wrong with you anyway? I'm not interested in hearing what you have to say about him! I don't care that he gave Voldemort information that led to your parents death--you ungrateful bast**d.' Julie says: I don't think JKR having Harry be wrong *in part* about Snape would be sending a message to abused children not to trust their gut instincts. Clearly Snape is mean, bitter, and at times downright verbally abusive. He doesn't hide it, especially from children, who don't need "gut instincts" to tell them to avoid him whenever possible. (Gut instincts come into play with the less open--and far more vicious--child abusers, who adopt a more Lupin-like attitude of friendliness and supportiveness, only to say or do things that aren't quite *right*, activating an instinctual internal alarm that the child isn't sure whether to trust or not because of the conflicting evidence. Such is not the case with Snape's consistently nasty attitude.) Of course, Potions students can't avoid Snape. They have to endure him. But that is a life lesson, enduring unpleasant things and people, and one of Dumbledore's reasons for letting Snape teach. Another life lesson children learn when they mature into adults is that there is more to a person than what is apparent on the surface, and that there are often reasons behind a person's behavior. Knowing why someone acts in a certain way (he was abused, experienced a trauma, etc) does not excuse that person's bad behavior, but it does allow one to understand and even empathize. (Harry finding out that his father and Sirius did on at least one occasion bully Snape is an example). For Harry to realize that there is more to Snape than he now knows or sees doesn't negate his interpretation of Snape's general attitude or behavior. And should Harry find out that Snape really was Dumbledore's man all along, that he assisted Harry in ways Harry only belatedly recognizes, it won't change the fact that Snape is/was a mean, bitter man who taught with contempt and ridicule rather than with encouragement and inspiration. Even if Harry recognizes this one part of Snape that was courageous, even "good"--if he feels a small bit of respect and gratitude--it won't change his overriding dislike for his least favorite teacher, his contempt for Snape's revealing of the prophecy to Voldemort, nor his likely pity for a gifted wizard who gave himself over to anger, vengeance and bitterness and thus laid the foundation for the wasteland that was much of his life. In this way Harry can realize that a person can be "horrible" in demeanor yet ultimately be redeemed by loyalty and courage to do the right thing. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Sep 4 08:36:51 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 08:36:51 -0000 Subject: Harry's character development In-Reply-To: <006601c5b06c$fbb3ac60$7cc2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139486 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cathy Drolet" wrote: CathyD: > Oh, I so agree with you Magda. > > There's one point in HBP that Dumbledore tells Harry that Riddle found out more of the magic within the castle than any other student (something like that, sorry my book isn't handy). I thought, well, certainly more than Harry who's found out nothing. Yes, he got into the CoS but that wasn't done on his own. Dobby told him about the Room of Requirement. Fred and George handed him the Marauders' Map and told him how to use it or he'd never have found any of the secret passages out of the school. > > I have days when I'm surprised the kid can find his way to the Quidditch pitch without signposts. Well, no, maybe not the Quidditch pitch .... Geoff: I hate to say it but that seems a rather patronising remark.... Young people can often take an interest in matters without broadcasting the fact to the world; I remember as a teenager having my own particular enthusiasms and not revealing them to adults because they wouldn't be interested or might ridicule them. Taking the COS as an example of Harry's actions, OK, Hermione worked out it was a basilisk and Aragog mentioned the kililng in the bathroom but Harry put all the information together and actually opened the entrance. Harry also spotted Peter Pettigrew on the map - and told Lupin. Give credit where it's due. Even heroes work in partnerships. where would Frodo have got to without the Fellowship and, later, Sam? From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Sep 4 08:50:03 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 08:50:03 -0000 Subject: Harry's character development In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139487 phoenixgod2000: Ultimately I think JKR is going to redeem Draco even though I think he probably shouldn't. He doesn't deserve it and I think there needs to be some contempory of Harry who well and irrevocably falls to the dark. I want Draco to be this student. Lupinlore: This is, of course, well in keeping with the standards of certain kinds of fantasy, particularly fantasy that's influenced by Christian beliefs. Frodo had no skills or powers with which to oppose Sauron, the children who stumbled through the wardrobe had no abilities with which to directly battle the White Witch. It is the convention of such things that victory arises from weakness and humility, not from power. Geoff: The whole point of Christian belief is that no one deserves redemption. No one has the power to oppose the devil. "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God." It is not a /convention/ that victory arises from weakness and humility, it is part of Jesus' teaching: "The meek shall inherit the earth". It is only when we see that chasing our own desires or seeking power over others for our own aggrandisment doesn't work that the truth can come to us - sometimes in a blinding flash of revelation - it happened that way with Saul of Tarsus. It could yet happen with someone lke Draco who is beginning to think for himself and see that following Voldemort is not all beer and skittles. Again, he could fall into the dark. People who knew Jesus closely still fell away and were lsot - the classic case was Judas Iscariot. From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 10:01:01 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 10:01:01 -0000 Subject: Killing tears the soul apart redux. Luna and sacrifice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139488 Responding to message: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139475 Nora has also pointed to the fact that JKR's statements regarding Occlumency leads her to believe that this skill is not all that it's cracked up to be, and that it takes a certain kind of person to do this. It's important that the person be able to compartmentalize their emotions ? push away their emotions. In other words it's like wearing a mask, putting on a false facade. vmonte again: I also wanted to add that success in Occlumency means that you have the ability to hide the truth from other people (basically that you're a good liar). It's interesting that Harry perceives Luna as someone that always speaks the "truth." Vivian From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sun Sep 4 10:16:21 2005 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 06:16:21 -0400 Subject: Missing Horcruxes & Harry's Protection from Lily Message-ID: <003e01c5b139$b2e6ce90$3ac2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 139489 > > >Janet: >I think you're right about Sirius' brother taking the locket, but I don't >think the locket was destroyed. Remember the locket at 12 Grimmauld Place when >the OOP was cleaning up the place? The one no one could open? > /Fabian >>I don't think that this locket is the one, since there's no mentioning of the any markings on the locket. The Locket in question is supposed to have the Slytherin Snake on it, and I hope and think they would pay a little more attention to a locket with such an evil brand on it, especially if it can't be opened. CathyD: I believe the engraving is a "serpentine S" not a snake although my book isn't handy to check that fact. However, I do know that the S or snake was not described in the initial seeing of the locket either, when Marvolo was draging Merope by the chain to show the locket to Bob Ogden. However, even if it did have an engraved Snake on the locket, that house, Grimmauld Place, was full of snake-related stuff. I think, at the point they found it in the cupboard, it would hardly stand out. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sun Sep 4 11:35:22 2005 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 07:35:22 -0400 Subject: Harry's character development Message-ID: <005501c5b144$bcdd2830$3ac2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 139490 CathyD: > I have days when I'm surprised the kid can find his way to the Quidditch pitch without signposts. Well, no, maybe not the Quidditch pitch .... Geoff: >I hate to say it but that seems a rather patronising remark.... CathyD: I presume my quote above is what you're bothered by, Geoff? Or perhaps it was the "I thought, well, certainly more than Harry who's found out nothing"? Dumbledore says: "Secondly, the castle is a stronghold of ancient magic. *Undoubtedly* Voldemort had penetrated many more of the secrets than most of the students who pass through the place..." (HBP 404 Can Ed) From what I have read, Harry has never, ever, even thought about the ancient magic in and around the school, nevermind tried to penetrate any of it. There is no evidence, anywhere that I can see, that shows otherwise. Hermione has to remind him, constantly, of the simplest fact that a person can't Apparate into or out of the Castle and grounds. As to my opinion of - oops, I was going to write Frodo...now see what you've done ;-) ...Harry, I think he's a bit of an idot. He puts very little effort into his homework, pays little attention in class, accomplishes learning only at dire need (Patronus, throwing off the Imperius curse, or when cramming, with Hermione's notes, for exams), never really tried to learn Occlumency (apart from what JKR says that he would not accomplish it anyway) despite how important it was for him to do so, yet he claims "it seems as though *I always knew* I'd have to face him in the end..." Seems pretty stupid to me although that is just my opinion. The only thing he has really excelled at is Quidditch. Of course, maybe he's going to fly past Voldie on his broom and plant a big wet kiss on his face and Voldie will disintegrate, but somehow I don't think so. >>Harry also spotted Peter Pettigrew on the map - and told Lupin. When? It never happened in my book. As far as I can tell, from a quick read-through this morning, Harry only used the Map twice, both times to get into Hogsmeade. The second time, in February, he was caught by Snape and the map was confiscated by Lupin. Lupin found Peter on the map the night Ron was dragged into the Whomping Willow by Sirius and Harry and Hermione followed. He had the map open on his desk and saw HRH going to Hagrid's Hut then saw Pettigrew with them when they left. I honestly can't fiind anywhere that says Harry saw Pettigrew on the map and told Lupin about it. >>Give credit where it's due. Even heroes work in partnerships. where would Frodo have got to without the Fellowship and, later, Sam? You mean, where would Sam have been without Frodo, surely? Sam is, after all, the one who got the ring to Mount Doom and Gollum was the one who destroyed it. Frodo only carried the ring; Sam was the real hero, IMO, and wouldn't have needed Frodo at all if he'd had the ring himself. He should have left Frodo in the Tower at Cirith Ungol and gone on alone. Only then Frodo would have been killed when the ring was destroyed along with all that was made by its power. Of course, then we wouldn't have had that sappy, drivelly, off to the Undying Lands, bit at the end of the book. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Sun Sep 4 11:48:29 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 11:48:29 -0000 Subject: Snape's penance? (was: Opposite of a Horcrux/Interesting Parallel) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139491 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > Now, I actually happen to think (and I have no canon support, I > know!) that it's possible that a "mercy killing" or a killing > commanded by a superior officer in time of war just might not cause > the soul to rip the way that a cold-blooded murder does. But > assuming the other folks are correct and I'm wrong -- that even this > kind of killing DOES cause the rip -- might it not be that this > horrible thing, this ripping of the soul, is simply the *penance* > Snape is paying for the mistakes he's made? > > Snape was a DE. Quite likely he participated in some pretty nasty > actions as a DE. He also *is* responsible for providing Voldy with > the prophecy information that eventually led to the attack on the > Potters at Godric's Hollow. Many people have expressed that they > would like to see Snape suffer, to be punished for his sins/crimes. > Now, still assuming Loyal!Snape here, his being asked to do > something like this -- to kill the man he, imo, cared most about in > the world -- and to rip his own soul in the process... wouldn't that > be the kind of suffering some people are asking for? Wouldn't that > be "good enough" for Snape's penance?? Marianne: An interesting idea. But, are you suggesting that this idea of penance played a part in whatever discussions/communication that DD and Snape had with regards to the possible necessity of Snape killing DD? Or is this something that might occur to Snape after the fact, that he has damaged his soul but can accept that to pay for the wrongs he's done, whatever they may be? It seems to me that what is missing in this scenario is Snape's acknowledgement that he has committed wrongs in the first place, which need to be atoned for. Yes, he gave DD the story about his remorse over the death of the Potters, but I have a problem with accepting that at face value. Perhaps whatever else is part of that story, which DD was obviously unwilling to share with Harry, involves something that Snape truly regrets and would willingly harm his soul for in an act of penance. The other thing I just thought of is who would suggest soul- splitting as penance. If Snape willingly took this on, it would suggest to me that he did it for all the right reasons. And, to answer your question, yes, that would be good enough for me for Snape's penance. However, if the suggestion came from DD, I'd be uncomfortable as to why he was the spiritual judge and jury for Snape's soul. I suppose it could have been done in typical Dumbledorian manner, where he wouldn't insist that killing him would be a suitable penance for Snape, but just that this possibility might be something for Snape to consider, thus leaving the ultimate decision in Snape's hands. OTOH, this seems like a lot to process in the few minutes they had together on the tower, so I would think that this is a topic discussed and pondered over at some point in time well before DD's death. Marianne, who's still relatively, sort of firmly in the OFH!Snape camp From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 11:52:46 2005 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 11:52:46 -0000 Subject: Snape's Attack on Flitwick Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139492 Although I lean to believing that Snape killed Dumbledore on Dumbledore's orders, and that Snape isn't really working for Voldemort, I am most troubled by my inability to reconcile Snape's attack on Flitwick with this theory. Hermione described how Flitwick rushed to Snape's office to alert him to the Death Eaters entering Hogwarts. Snape knocked Flitwick out. And I do believe Harry's statement to Hermione that had she tried to prevent Snape from joining the others instead of helping Flitwick, that Snape would have killed her and Luna. This is the piece of the puzzle I cannot reconcile. This has probably been addressed in previous posts but the subject of Snape's role is so broad, I'm bringing this component up as a thread, looking for further thoughts on it. mhbobbin From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 12:00:54 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 12:00:54 -0000 Subject: Don't kill me, it's my husbands fault... Time-Travel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139494 vmonte: My husband likes to tease me about all my old time-travel theories (which he thought were very Luna-like of me). Anyway, because he likes to mess with my head, he mentioned that it was curious that the only two people that were not involved in the fight during the Lightning-Struck Tower, were Hermione and Luna. They were separated from most of the events in that scene because they were by Snape's office. He said that if anyone were to time travel back in book seven it would probably be Hermione who would not have to worry about bumping into herself at any point during the fight. My husband likes Harry Potter, but not in the same way that I do. Anyway, he's already on his 2nd reading of HBP. Really, it's amazing. I asked him why he likes this particular book so much. He quoted "word for word" the scene where Harry kisses Ginny for the first time. Vivian From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Sep 4 12:05:16 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 12:05:16 -0000 Subject: Harry's character development In-Reply-To: <005501c5b144$bcdd2830$3ac2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139495 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cathy Drolet" wrote: > CathyD: > > I have days when I'm surprised the kid can find his way to the > Quidditch pitch without signposts. Well, no, maybe not the > Quidditch pitch .... > > Geoff: > >I hate to say it but that seems a rather patronising remark.... > > CathyD: > I presume my quote above is what you're bothered by, Geoff? Or perhaps it was the "I thought, well, > certainly more than Harry who's found out nothing"? Geoff: It was your remark about the Qudditch pitch that I felt was, at the least, unkind. CathyD: > Dumbledore says: "Secondly, the castle is a stronghold of ancient magic. *Undoubtedly* Voldemort had penetrated many more of the secrets than most of the students who pass through the place..." (HBP 404 Can Ed) From what I have read, Harry has never, ever, even thought about the ancient magic in and around the school, nevermind tried to penetrate any of it. There is no evidence, anywhere that I can see, that shows otherwise. Hermione has to remind him, constantly, of the simplest fact that a person can't Apparate into or out of the Castle and grounds. Geoff: Well, Hermione reminds most people constantly, of the simplest facts - there, that's me being, at the least, unkind. :-) CathyD: > As to my opinion of - oops, I was going to write Frodo...now see what you've done ;-) ...Harry, I think he's a bit of an idot. He puts very little effort into his homework, pays little attention in class, accomplishes learning only at dire need (Patronus, throwing off the Imperius curse, or when cramming, with Hermione's notes, for exams), never really tried to learn Occlumency (apart from what JKR says that he would not accomplish it anyway) despite how important it was for him to do so, yet he claims "it seems as though *I always knew* I'd have to face him in the end..." Seems pretty stupid to me although that is just my opinion. The only thing he has really excelled at is Quidditch. Of course, maybe he's going to fly past Voldie on his broom and plant a big wet kiss on his face and Voldie will disintegrate, but somehow I don't think so. Geoff: Come on, the guy is a teenager. When I was Harry's age, I say without being boastful that I was considered one of the brightest kids on the block - my exam results bore that out. But I often didn't put as much effort into my work as I ought to. I am intellectually rather lazy and, as you suggest with Harry in your remark above, I often only learned at dire need but still retain the ability to pick up information at great speed when the crisis breaks (!) One of my teachers said that I was highly intelligent but lacked common sense; my wife still agrees with that analysis. Geoff: > >>Harry also spotted Peter Pettigrew on the map - > and told Lupin CathyD: > When? It never happened in my book. ....Lupin found Peter on the map the night Ron was dragged into the Whomping Willow by Sirius and Harry and Hermione followed. He had the map open on his desk and saw HRH going to Hagrid's Hut then saw Pettigrew with them when they left. I honestly can't fiind anywhere that says Harry saw Pettigrew on the map and told Lupin about it. Geoff: My apologies. I had a bad attack of movie contamination. I am taking the relevant tablets. Geoff: > >>Give credit where it's due. Even heroes work in partnerships. where > would Frodo have got to without the Fellowship and, later, Sam? CathyD: > You mean, where would Sam have been without Frodo, surely? Sam is, after all, the one who got the ring to Mount Doom and Gollum was the one who destroyed it. Frodo only carried the ring; Sam was the real hero, IMO, and wouldn't have needed Frodo at all if he'd had the ring himself. He should have left Frodo in the Tower at Cirith Ungol and gone on alone. Only then Frodo would have been killed when the ring was destroyed along with all that was made by its power. Of course, then we wouldn't have had that sappy, drivelly, off to the Undying Lands, bit at the end of the book. Geoff: Cathy, are you really suggesting that Sam should have kept the Ring and taken it himself and left Frodo to the tender mercies of Sauron? Sauron would have had the truth out of Frodo and had the whole of the Nazgul on Sam's trail before you could say "Elbereth Gilthoniel", The whole of the march to the Black Gate by Aragorn with the army of Gondor would not have staved off the final irrevocable disaster for Middle-Earth. Geoff Written from a long weekend in Cardiff playing catch up on messages when I get near my host's computer! From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Sep 4 13:43:44 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 13:43:44 -0000 Subject: Snape's Attack on Flitwick In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139496 mhbobbin: > Although I lean to believing that Snape killed Dumbledore on > Dumbledore's orders, and that Snape isn't really working for > Voldemort, I am most troubled by my inability to reconcile Snape's > attack on Flitwick with this theory. Valky: I too find it difficult to reconcile, I generally have ignored it up till now, but I guess we should bite it and have a look sometime hey? :D > mhbobbin: > Hermione described how Flitwick rushed to Snape's office to alert > him to the Death Eaters entering Hogwarts. Snape knocked Flitwick > out. Valky: You know, my first thought is that have we ever wondered what kind of dueller Flitwick is? I think so far we have taken it pretty much for granted that all the teachers can hold their own in a fight. But I don't ever rememebr specific canon analysis of Flitwicks duelling skills. Heres something, In COS Hermione relates that she was told Flitwick was a duelling Champion when he was young. But then... rumours being what they are... this is Lockhart's duelling club, and the teachers did like their little joke with Lockhart. Snape said to him that he knew a tiny bit about duelling which was obviously meant to decieve him into making a fool of himself. And I can't imagine *anyone* in Hogwarts wanting to help Gilderoy take an easy out on the least capable teacher there which he certainly will have done given the chance.. I am almost inclined to dismiss it, I am almost inclined to believe that the teachers themselves started the rumour to prevent Gilderoy asking Flitwick to be his duelling partner... I mean it's not actually canon is it? its a rumour.. ;D Later in the book Filus squeals and bursts into tears when he is told about Ginny in the chamber. It just seems so wrong to consider him a dueller.. and then there's the protections in PS/SS - I think we get the sense that MacGonagall and Snape are formidable from the nature of their protections. Macgonagalls is oversized, ominous, sentient chess pieces, its fairly apparent from that where most or all of us got our sense of certainty that MacGonagall could "take em on standing", and it was vindicated in OOtP. Snapes conversley is a spooky and dangerous challenge, and again we are vindicated in our sense that Snape is not an easily shaken sort of dueller. So comparing these things to Flitwicks protections, could we say the same thing? I actually don't think we can. Flitwicks protection tends to remind of the Cornish Pixies that Hermione took to order almost singlehandedly in COS, the ones that Seamus laughed off as silly. with that to start I am already getting a sense that Flitty is just that, flitty. The foreshadowing indicates that he doesn't have big guns in battle. I may be entirely flying off the radar here, but I get the sense of the other teachers being a little protective of their tiny colleague. It could even be said that we have seen Snape act to protect him before, was he simply doing it again? mhbobbin: > And I do believe Harry's statement to Hermione that had she tried to > prevent Snape from joining the others instead of helping Flitwick, > that Snape would have killed her and Luna. Valky: It was Lupin actually. I think I am getting a sense of Lupin in a moment where he is suddenly absorbing a whole lot of opinions that Sirius and James had of Snape, one he previously resisted buying into. I have a strong suspicion that the particular opinion that Snape would have killed the girls was lifted by Lupin directly from a memory of young James' talk. Some might disagree, but I suspect its true. I know its very "Good!Snape" heavy, but I guess those are my only thoughts other than Snape is bad bad bad. Valky Not really on the fence, but on the fence... not... From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 14:06:16 2005 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 14:06:16 -0000 Subject: Snape's Attack on Flitwick In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139497 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > mhbobbin: > > Although I lean to believing that Snape killed Dumbledore on > > Dumbledore's orders, and that Snape isn't really working for > > Voldemort, I am most troubled by my inability to reconcile Snape's attack on Flitwick with this theory. > > Valky: > (snip) In COS Hermione relates that she was told Flitwick > was a duelling Champion when he was young. But then... rumours being> what they are... (major snip) I am almost inclined to > believe that the teachers themselves started the rumour to prevent > Gilderoy asking Flitwick to be his duelling partner... > (snip)I actually don't think we can. Flitwicks > protection tends to remind of the Cornish Pixies that Hermione took to > order almost singlehandedly in COS, the ones that Seamus laughed off > as silly. with that to start I am already getting a sense that Flitty > is just that, flitty. The foreshadowing indicates that he doesn't have > big guns in battle > (Snip snip snip)> Not really on the fence, but on the fence... not... Valky mhbobbin replies: Valiant attempt, Valky, but Flitwick's battle hardiness (assuming he's weak and that canon deliberately misleads) does not give Snape a legitimate pro-Order anti-Voldemort reason to take Flitwick out unless you are saying Snape knocks Flitwick out of the battle "for his own good". This seems like a stretch. At that point Snape doesn't know --I believe--exactly what's going on or what Draco's mission is. Dumbledore had not called on him--as he had other Order members--to protect Hogwarts that evening. And Draco had not apprised Snape of needing Death Eater assistance that evening. Without knowing the situaion, Snape pre-emptively removes Flitwick from battle. Unless Flitwick truly just fainted and it wasn't Snape's fault at all. Still too much mental gymnastics to fit this event into Good!Snape theory for me. mhbobbin From muellem at bc.edu Sun Sep 4 14:06:57 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 14:06:57 -0000 Subject: Missing Horcruxes & Harry's Protection from Lily In-Reply-To: <20050904074427.58563.qmail@web52709.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139498 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sp. sot." wrote: > > > --- colebiancardi wrote: Msnip> > I think by the time that > > scene rolled around, > > it *was* not out of the ordinary anymore to see > > snake markings on a > > locket. I think that was purposely left out. I can > > see that by this > > time, no one notices these things anymore, because > > snake markings are > > ALL over the place. The important thing we were > > supposed to note was > > that the locket couldn't be opened. > > > > colebiancardi > > (who does like snakes....but thinks the Black's went > > overboard with > > that theme) > > > > Griffin782002 now: > > I am not sure, but that locket had the symbol of > Slytherin on would have more logical for JKR to > mention it? We read the book but we can't "see" what > Harry and the others "see", only with our imagination. > Unless of course she wanted to tease us and make us > create more theories. > > Griffin782002 Yes, That is why I stated it was purposely left out - that is what I think she wanted to do - to tease us and not give *too* much away in OotP and HBP. But I have been known to be wrong. colebiancardi From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Sep 4 15:02:03 2005 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 4 Sep 2005 15:02:03 -0000 Subject: Reminder - Weekly Chat Message-ID: <1125846123.13.18917.m21@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139499 We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. Weekly Chat Date: Sunday, September 4, 2005 Time: 11:00AM 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 delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 08:08:36 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 08:08:36 -0000 Subject: Hermione and the HBP (was Academic dishonesty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139500 Laura Lynn Walsh wrote: "This is what bugs me about Hermione in this whole sequence. She always HAS been interested in the theory - until HBP. Now, instead of trying to figure out WHY Harry's results are so much better, she simply rejects them immediately." Del replies: I agree. I wasn't surprised that Hermione would reject the book the first time, but I firmly expected her to give it a closer look once she realised that Harry *consistently* got better results than she did, thanks to it. Laura Walsh wrote: "If she were truly interested in learning the theory behind potion making, she would carefully analyze the difference in the directions in her book and in Harry's. It is this CHANGE in Hermione that I don't understand. I think it would have been much more in character for her to look at the changes and say, "I see why that helped. I am going to put that in my book, too. I don't think this bit did anything, but why don't you try using it and I won't and we'll see whether it DOES make a difference." etc., etc." Del replies: I totally agree. Pre-HBP!Hermione was *bound* to be fascinated by a book that so obviously contained valuable hints and insights into potion-making. Sure, Hermione used to go by the rules, and PS/SS!Hermione might have refused to examine the book simply because it wasn't Ministry-approved. But Hermione has grown a great deal since PS/SS, she's accepted the fact that rule-breaking isn't necessarily wrong in itself, and that the Ministry doesn't have any divine authority. She tricked a professor to get a book in the Restricted Section to make a potion secretly, she used a Ministry TT to thwart the Ministry's plans, she helped Harry found a secret society devoted to opposing the will of the Ministry, and so forth and so on. And then in HBP she's supposed to revert to her old PS/SS self, who won't put a toe out of line and won't touch anything that isn't Ministry-approved?? I don't think so. Laura Walsh wrote: "Why was it necessary for Hermione to reject the book? I suppose it made it possible to keep the Sectumsempra curse from her. But that could have been done with some stuck together pages, too." Del replies: There were many reasons why Hermione must not look at the HBP book too closely IMO. * There was the Sectumsempra Curse, as you said. Hermione probably knows quite a bit more Latin than Harry does, and she most probably would have guessed that such a spell was something that Harry shouldn't try on a human being. * There was the fact that Hermione would most probably have figured out who the HBP was. Either she would have recognised the hand-writing, or she would have realised that the modified recipes were eerily reminiscent of the ones Snape used to give them. * There was the need for Harry to shine in Potions, so Slughorn could repeat ad nauseam how much Harry was like his mother who was such a genius at Potions. * I also think that the researches Hermione made in the old Daily Prophets will turn out to be important in Book 7. If Hermione had not mistrusted the HBP so strongly, she probably wouldn't have bothered to research who he could be. That's some of the reasons Hermione had to mistrust the HBP, IMO. As for how this mistrust can be reconciled with her character, I guess we are supposed to believe that she lost control of her jealousy in HBP. She acted stupidly and even meanly towards Ron because of romantic jealousy, and I think we are supposed to believe that she acted stupidly towards the HBP because of intellectual jealousy. She wouldn't study the HBP's notes because she went on a sort of competition with the HBP, through Harry. She tried to prove that she was a better potion-maker than the HBP. That's the only way I can explain to myself that Hermione would let such a mine as the HBP book sit under her nose without studying it. Del From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Sun Sep 4 15:21:27 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 15:21:27 -0000 Subject: Snape's Attack on Flitwick In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139501 mhbobbin: > > Although I lean to believing that Snape killed Dumbledore on > Dumbledore's orders, and that Snape isn't really working for > Voldemort, I am most troubled by my inability to reconcile Snape's > attack on Flitwick with this theory. > > Hermione described how Flitwick rushed to Snape's office to alert him > to the Death Eaters entering Hogwarts. Snape knocked Flitwick out. And > I do believe Harry's statement to Hermione that had she tried to > prevent Snape from joining the others instead of helping Flitwick, > that Snape would have killed her and Luna. > > This is the piece of the puzzle I cannot reconcile. This has probably > been addressed in previous posts but the subject of Snape's role is so > broad, I'm bringing this component up as a thread, looking for further > thoughts on it. > > mhbobbin > Professor Flitwick is how big? Perhaps in Snape's NSHO a battle with Fenrir Greyback was not the best place for the little guy. What if the tall blond dude stepped on him? (Gatta stands 4'11" in her Quidditch cleats, so she can relate...) --La Gatta From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Sun Sep 4 15:19:11 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 15:19:11 -0000 Subject: Soul Splitting Questions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139502 > houyhnhnm: > > BTW, with respect to "killing tears the soul", I still maintain that > this is *not* canonical, if it means that any taking of life > (regardless of motive or circumstances) damages the soul in some > irremediable way that lying, bullying, cheating, hurting, and hating > (committed by so many of the characters in the HP books) do not. > > I want to see quotations with page numbers. Elyse: I completely agree. I was under the impression that a splitting of the soul occurs when and only when the spell caster is *trying* to create horcruxes. When it it his intention that his soul must be split. For example in GoF doesn't someone say that Moody was a great Auror who "never killed if he could help it, But always tried to bring them in alive as far as possible" Moody doesn't seem to be the type to create a horcrux or split his soul, intentionally or otherwise. Another problem I have with this a-soul-is-split-each-time-murder-is-committed theory is when Voldemort is trying to kill Harry at the end of GoF. He wanted his soul in seven pieces since it is the most powerful number right? So why would he ruin that by breaking his soul into eighths? For that matter I'm sure he's killed a lot of people over a span of 11 years. And I mean A LOT! Didn't someone on the list say he had committed over 1000 specific crimes? I'm sure murder accounted for at least 60 percent of them. So how come Voldy doesn't have at least 60 pieces of his soul? Carol responds: I think it depends on what "tearing the soul" *means.* It's most unlikely that Snape is going to want to create a Horcrux (unless he's setting himself up as Voldy's successor, an idea that I see nocanon support for). What are the consequences of soul-tearing in more ordinary circumstances when murder is committed? Elyse now: I would like to take Carol's question further. Assuming as everyone does that a soul is split each time murder is committed, What happens to the split piece of the soul? Where does it go? If you were creating a horcrux, the soul is harnessed in an object. But if you *unintentionally* split your soul, where does it go? Also, one more question, concerning horcruxes. If the locket stolen by R.A.B. is indeed the one in 12 Grimmauld place, How come it hasn't acquired a life of its own by now? I mean in CoS, the piece of Voldys soul in the diary became active right away. It talked to Ginny, possessed her eventually and carried out its own agenda - opening the chamber of secrets. So how come the Voldy-in-the-locket has been dormant for so long? Shouldn't he be gaining strength, perhaps possessing people? (Kreacher maybe?) And if it is active how come it hasn't shown itself by now? It must know it is not in its rightful place. (It reminds me of Lord Of The Rings... The ring WANTS to be found ..) Similarly what if the horcrux WANTS to be found ? Questions worth splitting one's mind over, if not the soul :) Elyse From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Sep 4 07:47:01 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 07:47:01 -0000 Subject: Killing tears the soul apart redux. Luna and sacrifice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139503 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > > It seems rather reasonable to assume that in the end, Harry's battle > with Voldemort will be similar in nature. Voldemort will try to > remove the horcrux from Harry's head, and it will kill him. At some > point in time during book 7 Harry will find out what his mother did > to protect him and he will understand what he carries inside his > scar. > > Poor Luna! I can see this girl dying midway through the book. Will > Harry remember her religious faith in the afterlife and find the > resolve to sacrifice himself for the greater good? Yes, I think so. > Harry will choose to sacrifice himself for the people he loves. > > I hope Ginny's experience with DiaryTom has given her some knowledge > to save Harry. I hope she comes to his rescue. > That is one scenario, and it may well come true. However, it does not include one crucial piece of information, what was the "gleam of triumph" we saw in DD at the end of GoF about? Surely not a realization that Harry is a Horcrux and will have to die. Let me offer a modification of your scenario, simply as a thought experiment. Let's say Harry IS a Horcrux, and that DD had suspected that for some time. Okay, but DD has said that putting a part of your soul in a living, thinking creature has great dangers. Maybe in using Harry's blood to effect his return, Voldemort unwittingly created a "reverse conduit" between himself and Harry. That is, he created a connection through which Harry might be able to force the soul shard out of his own body and back into Voldemort's, thus in effect "destroying" the final Horcrux without literally destroying himself. This would explain the "gleam of triumph" remark from GoF AND the "in essence divided" remark from OOTP. Voldemort was counting on "those fools who love" to keep himself alive, as he was betting that even if Dumbledore figured out his plan and destroyed his other Horcruxes he would never kill Harry our allow him to be killed. But he did not realize that in choosing Harry as the victim for his ritual of return, he was opening a route by which the the soul shard, "the divided essence" inside Harry, could be removed without actually killing Harry himself. This fact is what Dumbledore suddenly realized at the end of GoF, and the "gleam of triumph" was his sudden flare of hope that, even if Harry were a Horcrux, all might yet be well. Lupinlore From carodave92 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 14:30:53 2005 From: carodave92 at yahoo.com (carodave92) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 14:30:53 -0000 Subject: Snape's Attack on Flitwick In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139504 > mhbobbin: > > Valiant attempt, Valky, but Flitwick's battle hardiness (assuming > he's weak and that canon deliberately misleads) does not give Snape > a legitimate pro-Order anti-Voldemort reason to take Flitwick out > unless you are saying Snape knocks Flitwick out of the battle "for > his own good". This seems like a stretch. > Carodave: I remember (don't have my book, sorry) that there was a welt of some kind on Flitwick's forehead, presumably where Snape's curse hit. I don't think he could have just fainted. If Dumbledore thought enough of Flitwick's skill to have him on patrol that night, then I remain Dumbledore's (wo)man enough to trust that Flitwick can carry his own...except when blindsided by someone he thought was an ally. After all, DD could have skipped over Flitwick and had another Order member patrolling, no need to use Flitwick if he's not a strong asset. Carodave From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Sep 4 07:08:16 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 07:08:16 -0000 Subject: Possible Horcrux Complication Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139505 I've been thinking about the whole Horcrux plotline, and something occured to me. Dumbledore and Harry are going on the assumption that there are only four horcruxes left (five if you count Voldemort himself). This is based in part on the idea that Voldemort can't feel when one of his horcruxes has been destroyed. The problem is that Voldemort may very well know that the diary has been destroyed. In fact, Dumbledore seems to believe that he does know this, based on his statement about the power of Voldemort's anger when he found out what Lucius had done. Given this, how can Dumbledore and Harry be sure that Voldemort has not constructed another Horcrux to replace the diary? It certainly would be a kicker if Harry destroyed the other four, then faced down Voldemort only to discover that there is another soul shard hidden out there somewhere. Of course, part of the problem here is that we don't know all that much about the actual creation of Horcruxes and the effects of splitting one's soul into multiple pieces. How difficult is it to make a Horcrux? We know that making one involves murder, but does it require extensive preparation in advance? Does the murder have to be scheduled at a particular time and accomplished by a particular method? Can a sufficiently ruthless wizard create a Horcrux "on the fly" so to speak? How many times can one divide one's soul? Is there a limit? Dumbledore is basing the idea that there are seven soul shards on Voldemort's talk about the magical significance of seven. But how can they be sure. How can they know that Voldemort didn't change his mind and go with another mystical number, such as nine? For that matter, what happens to the soul shard inside a Horcrux when the Horcrux is destroyed? Does it return to the wizard? If so, then the danger of Voldemort creating a replacement Horcrux would seem to be acute. Or does it go directly to where ever bad little wizards go? If the latter is the case, then creating a replacement might well be much more difficult, particularly if there is some kind of limit on how often a soul can be divided. Just musing. Lupinlore From trouble_h2o at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 23:12:46 2005 From: trouble_h2o at yahoo.com (trouble_h2o) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 23:12:46 -0000 Subject: Trusting your instincts about Snape WAS: sexy Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139506 vmonte responds I know that Snape has multitudes of fans, but I really don't think that JKR is writing books to tell children that they should not trust their gut instincts about people. The reason that abuse tends to be under reported as a whole is because the victims are afraid that no one will listen to them or that they will not be believed. It's seems more in JKR's nature that she would be telling children that they should trust their instincts. trouble_h2o >From personal experince with abuse during my teen years, Professor Snape would have been the only teacher at Hogwarts that I might have told what was going on at home. The reasons I would have told Professor Snape 1. He is without question an amazingly powerful wizard.I believe that intellect and emotions rule him equally. He is passionate about what he loves but he's also I doubt you would find many wizard clever as him in a long days march and even fewer witches. -Elyse trouble_h2o: I see this as being able to protect me from the abuser or teach me to protect myself. 2. Knowing how I responded to adults that challeged me - I was mouthy and brutally told them my opinion / truth without much tact or concern as to when, where and who else heard. This would have gotten me into much trouble and many detentions at Hogwarts as it did in real life. Professor Snape would have seen alot of me, most likely more than any other student. 3. Snape can keep his mouth shut, most of the time he seems to act in the background, for instance arranging to referee the quiditch match in SS/PS, getting folks back to the castle on strechers after the shricking stack in PoA, etc. This would have been important to me that who I told did not run off half cocked trying to "save" me without taking the whole situation into consideration. vmonte responds: I mean, really, who would want this guy to love them? He's kind of mean and abusive don't you think? He treats everyone with contempt, and I really don't think he has any friends. trouble_h2o 4. I don't love the guy but in the past I would have and still view him as brash, brutally honest,and tactless (like myself - I did learn tact when I got out of the situation I was in.) I don't veiw his behavior so much as so much as contempt but extremely high expectations of himself and others. ( Very similiar to my own) This is probably the main reason I could have told him, he would not have felt "sorry" for me, or told me how disappointed he was in me for my behaviors, etc. He would have helped if asked, but would not allow self-pity, and would have expected me to keep my end of the agreement, not resubmitting myself to the abusive situation over and over again. (It took a friend in college several years to get me to see my way out of the cycle.) 5. Snape seems to know when students are being less than truthful (Legilimensing them). Even as a poor muggle I knew who would believe me and who probably would not by watching how they interact with other people. Snape would have been the one teacher I could have expected to believe me. His charactor is not one to boot lick those in position or power, his dislike of Umbridge for instance. This would have been important in my situation. Snape reminds me of my best friend who has a knack for getting people to see themselves as they realy are and what they need to do to change themself and the situation. But, my friend is gentle and tactful, most of the time. example - Snape after the tower scene in HBP telling Harry to close his mouth and his mind. I hope that others can see my point of veiw on this polorizing charactor. I know that I did not flesh it out well, and I'm not sure if he is ESE Snape, ESG Snape, or out for himself Snape. But, from my life experinces I see a man that can be trusted with personal secrects and demons and able to act in very difficult situations. Someone I can respect but not like all the time. Trouble_h2o From MadameSSnape at aol.com Sun Sep 4 15:27:41 2005 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 11:27:41 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's Attack on Flitwick Message-ID: <19a.3b6b95a4.304c6c6d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139507 In a message dated 9/4/2005 11:24:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com writes: Professor Flitwick is how big? Perhaps in Snape's NSHO a battle with Fenrir Greyback was not the best place for the little guy. What if the tall blond dude stepped on him? (Gatta stands 4'11" in her Quidditch cleats, so she can relate...) ================== Sherrie here: Suppose he knocked him OUT by knocking him DOWN? Does Hermione ever say that Snape knocked him out with a spell? I don't recall that she does. I can easily see Snape, in his rush to get out of the office, simply shoving the little guy aside, perhaps a bit harder than necessary (or than he intended). A knock on the head and... Sherrie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Sun Sep 4 15:40:47 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 15:40:47 -0000 Subject: Recursion: See Recursion Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139508 Here's a poser for you: In the Muggleverse that runs alongside the Wizarding World in the Harry Potter books, do J.K. Rowling and the Harry Potter books exist? And if so: (1) Does the existence of the books in the (fictional?) Muggleverse generate another level of WW and MV, in which the books exist and generate...and so ad infinitum? (Inspired by staring fixedly at the Land of Lakes butter package while the coffee water heated.) (1) How does the Wizarding World feel about being "outed" in so cavalier a fashion? Do they figure the Muggles think it's just fiction and this too shall pass, or is there a delegation from the MoM on its way to rearrange Ms. Rowling's memory? (2) For that matter, is there a WW that runs along side *this* Muggleverse? And how does *it* feel about being "outed" in so cavalier a fashion... --Gatta, on Her Way Back to Bed Before She Has Any More Ideas :P From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Sun Sep 4 15:49:10 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 11:49:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's Attack on Flitwick In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050904154911.26512.qmail@unknown-206-190-38-165.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139510 lagattalucianese wrote: mhbobbin: > > Although I lean to believing that Snape killed Dumbledore on > Dumbledore's orders, and that Snape isn't really working for > Voldemort, I am most troubled by my inability to reconcile Snape's > attack on Flitwick with this theory. > > Hermione described how Flitwick rushed to Snape's office to alert him > to the Death Eaters entering Hogwarts. Snape knocked Flitwick out. And > I do believe Harry's statement to Hermione that had she tried to > prevent Snape from joining the others instead of helping Flitwick, > that Snape would have killed her and Luna. > > This is the piece of the puzzle I cannot reconcile. This has probably > been addressed in previous posts but the subject of Snape's role is so > broad, I'm bringing this component up as a thread, looking for further > thoughts on it. > > mhbobbin > Professor Flitwick is how big? Perhaps in Snape's NSHO a battle with Fenrir Greyback was not the best place for the little guy. What if the tall blond dude stepped on him? (Gatta stands 4'11" in her Quidditch cleats, so she can relate...) --La Gatta Luckdragon: >From what we know of Snape I'm sure he was aware that Hermione and Luna were out there and by putting Flitwick out of commission he ensured that all 3 were kept safely out of the fray so that he could carry out his mission. Brenda(who just can't believe Snape is evil despite the glaring facts) Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! --------------------------------- YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "HPforGrownups" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPforGrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Sep 4 15:57:21 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 15:57:21 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139511 "delwynmarch" wrote: > Hermione, on the other hand, understands > the theory, the interactions between the > different ingredients, and is developing a > sense of the art of potion-making. Actually I don't think Hermione has much understanding of the theory behind potions, I say that because she has never made an original potion, neither has any other student. > Hermione at least had an idea of what to do when they had to create that multiple antidote. She knew the principles, she knew the spells, she knew the ingredients and their antidotes. Hermione knew a spell that would tell her what was in a mixture of poisons and had memorized the antidotes to the individual poisons and knew how to mix them together, but there is no evidence she had the slightest idea why any of it worked. > And yes, following instructions can be > the very best way to learn some things Following lousy instructions will not give you a better understanding than following excellent instructions. > if the book told Ron how to produce > silent magic without actually learning > it the hard way, and Ron got better > grades at silent fighting than Harry did? > Don't you think that Harry would think > that Ron cheated No I don't think Harry would mind a bit especially if Ron offered to share this newfound knowledge with him. The fact is that by a lucky chance Harry found a new and better way to do things, and when luck falls your way it's unreasonable to ask someone to forsake it, at least I think so. > I was disgusted because I didn't expect > Harry to cheat simply so he could get > good grades and praises. It's lame, IMO, > and not at all up to his usual standard. If you were 16 and in Harry's position what would you have done? I'm not asking what a moral paragon would have done, nor am I asking what you hope you would have done, I'm asking what you honestly think you would have done in that class on that day. As for me, I'm certain I would have kept on reading the notes in the margin and kept my mouth shut about it. And suppose your debating skills were such that you actually convinced me that it was a tad underhanded, what would I do then? I would have kept on reading the notes in the margin and kept my mouth shut about it. Maybe I just hang out with the wrong crowd but I don't believe anyone I know would willingly spill the beans and give up that book. And if I was Harry I'd have even less guilt about it, I'd figure I'd already given far more than my share to the wizard world and I'll probably be dead in a year anyway so I'm not going to ignore a rare piece good luck that falls into my lap, life is too short for that. I'm not saying that's what a moral paragon would feel I'm saying that's how I'd feel if I was Harry. Eggplant From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 15:58:17 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 15:58:17 -0000 Subject: Killing tears the soul apart redux. Luna and sacrifice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139512 Lupinlore: That is one scenario, and it may well come true. However, it does not include one crucial piece of information, what was the "gleam of triumph" we saw in DD at the end of GoF about? Surely not a realization that Harry is a Horcrux and will have to die. Let me offer a modification of your scenario, simply as a thought experiment. Let's say Harry IS a Horcrux, and that DD had suspected that for some time. Okay, but DD has said that putting a part of your soul in a living, thinking creature has great dangers. Maybe in using Harry's blood to effect his return, Voldemort unwittingly created a "reverse conduit" between himself and Harry. That is, he created a connection through which Harry might be able to force the soul shard out of his own body and back into Voldemort's, thus in effect "destroying" the final Horcrux without literally destroying himself. This would explain the "gleam of triumph" remark from GoF AND the "in essence divided" remark from OOTP. vmonte: Yes I've mentioned something similar in my previous posts. The idea is that Lily's blood is weakening Voldemort. And that the protection Lily gave Harry (along with Harry's life experience--friendship,love) has somehow transformed the horcrux. So that when the time comes Voldemort will take back the horcrux and it will kill him. I think that Harry will sacrifice himself. But... If Voldemort cannot bear the love that resides in Harry's head can you imagine what a "love horcrux" will do to him? It would make sense that Lily's gift would act in very much the way that Dumbledore idea in the PS did. Harry's sacrifice will cause Voldemort's weapon to backfire on him. It all goes back to the Philosopher's Stone. The person that wants the horcrux (the Stone) but does not want to use it for evil, will be able to get the horcrux. Vivian From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Sep 4 16:04:19 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 16:04:19 -0000 Subject: Snape's Attack on Flitwick In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139513 Valky: > With that to start I am already getting a sense that Flitty is > just that, flitty. The foreshadowing indicates that he doesn't > have big guns in battle > (Snip snip snip)> Not really on the > fence, but on the fence... not... > mhbobbin replies: > Valiant attempt, Valky, but Flitwick's battle hardiness (assuming > he's weak and that canon deliberately misleads) does not give > Snape a legitimate pro-Order anti-Voldemort reason to take > Flitwick out unless you are saying Snape knocks Flitwick out of > the battle "for his own good". This seems like a stretch. Jen: A couple of thoughts here. I doubt Dumbledore expected his non- Order professors to be battling the DE's, which is why he fortified the castle with Order members when leaving the grounds. The rest of the teachers were probably expected to assist McGonagall and look after the students in case of an emergency. So McGonagall sent Flitwick for Snape, the only Order professor not aware of the battle. One suggestion for Snape Stupefying Flitwick (see more below ) is when Snape heard DE's were in the castle, he knew he would have to assume his DE-persona and didn't want Flitwick following him and interfering if he appeared to be on the DE side. mhbobbin: > Unless Flitwick truly just fainted and it wasn't Snape's fault at > all. Jen: I was wondering about that too, he seems fine by the time the Heads of Houses meet with McGonagall. The only thing countering a fainting incident was Hermione saying Snape 'Stupefied' Flitwick and she usually knows her spells. But it's a little odd no one bothered to ask Flitwick any questions, since he could confirm what happened. Maybe McGonagall planned to ask him in private after the meeting in the headmistress office. I wonder if Flitwick saw something Snape didn't want him to see? And Snape memory-charmed him before Stupefying him? And there's more mystery: Snape is *sleeping*. Since when does he ever sleep? Mr. Prowl-Around-The-Castle guy? But Dumbledore confirmed it when he and Harry arrive on the tower: "Go and wake Severus." Now either everyone knows Snape goes to bed right after dinner and sleeps for a few hours, then is up all night guarding the castle, or DD (and thus McGonagall) knows that on this particular night, Severus is sleeping because DD made it so by a potion or spell. A spell is more probable, Snape could sniff out a potion. The only possible motive for DD to do this, and it's tenuous at best, would be if Snape was trying to actively keep Dumbledore from going after the cave Horcrux. Maybe Dumbledore told Snape he'd found another Horcrux and was planning to take Harry with him and Snape argued, sneering about Harry being a liability. So DD resorted to a sleeping spell for just that night. The argument against this idea is DD would want Snape fully functional every time he leaves the castle. Jen From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Sun Sep 4 16:06:27 2005 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 16:06:27 -0000 Subject: Killing tears the soul apart redux. In-Reply-To: <431A4432.23333.13EB17A@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139514 (snipped) > I (Tammy Rizzo) said: > > > Right there in black and white, very much canonical. *Killing* > > rips the soul apart. The act of taking another's life tears your > > soul apart. > > Then CMC said: > > He first says "murder", and it may be interpreted that he is > > defining as "killing" only those acts which fall under > > the definition of "murder." The Sixth Biblical Commandment > > which is often erroneously translated as "Thou shalt not > > kill" should actually be rendered as "Thou shalt not murder" > > - the Hebrew verb "tirsah" which is used in the Mosaic > > commandment is not one of the common verbs associated with > > killing an enemy on the field of battle, killing a sacrificial > > animal, or executing a convicted malefactor (all three of > > these deeds meet with Scriptural approval when properly > > conducted) - rather, it is associated with the cold-blooded > > execution of a personal enemy, or killing for personal > > gain (as opposed to killing to protect the community). > > > > Now I (Tammy Rizzo) say again: > I had already known about the more correct rendering of the sixth commandment as being > 'thou shalt not murder', but I do find it very interesting, the differences in meaning. I also find it > VERY interesting that, apparently, Harry doesn't make any distinction between 'kill' and > 'murder'. ... He has not yet, it seems, learned to make such a distintion between cold- > blooded, pre-meditated murder, and a 'rightous' killing, such as > in defence. ... I wonder if this is JKR's personal view, as well? For > myself, though, I can see and accept a difference between killing and murder. Of course, I can > also see and accept the worth of execution and/or assassination in general, ... > > So, Slughorn may have ... been echoing JKR's sentiments (if that is what she > believes), or he may have been stating bald fact, that killing, whatever the circumstances, does > great harm to the soul of he who kills. > aussie objects: Harry (and JKR) still considers the EXECUTION of a murderer to damage the soul. Why? Harry's reason in POA to stop Lupin and Black from killing Peter together was "I don't reckon my dad would've wanted them (Lupin & Black) to become killers -- just for you (Peter)." I also notice the OOTP guards in Hogwarts in HBP didn't AK any DE. The only fatality during the battle came from a stray curse from another DE that hit their own wizard. JKR protected the Order and DA members from "ripping their soul apart". aussie (PS: JKR may differ greatly from Mosaic law in this case. If your occupation is a military or police snipper, feel free to save my hide if I am the hostage.) From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Sun Sep 4 16:15:54 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Brenda) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 16:15:54 -0000 Subject: Snape's Attack on Flitwick In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139515 > Jen:-> > And there's more mystery: Snape is *sleeping*. Since when does he > ever sleep? Mr. Prowl-Around-The-Castle guy? But Dumbledore > confirmed it when he and Harry arrive on the tower: "Go and wake > Severus." Now either everyone knows Snape goes to bed right after > dinner and sleeps for a few hours, then is up all night guarding the > castle. Luckdragon: If DD was unsure of how long he would be away from the school, he would have had the staff working in shifts. As Snape always seems to be prowling around at night it would make sense that he would be sleeping before his shift began, particularly knowing what was in the works and that he would need to be alert on his guard duty. From hexicon at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 16:51:05 2005 From: hexicon at yahoo.com (Kristen) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 16:51:05 -0000 Subject: Snape's Attack on Flitwick In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139516 Jen wrote: [snip]One suggestion for Snape Stupefying Flitwick is when Snape heard DE's were in the castle, he knew he would have to assume his DE-persona and didn't want Flitwick following him and interfering if he appeared to be on the DE side. Hexicon: I like this one! Jen: [snip] > > And there's more mystery: Snape is *sleeping*. Since when does he > ever sleep? Mr. Prowl-Around-The-Castle guy? But Dumbledore > confirmed it when he and Harry arrive on the tower: "Go and wake > Severus." Now either everyone knows Snape goes to bed right after > dinner and sleeps for a few hours, then is up all night guarding the > castle, or DD (and thus McGonagall) knows that on this particular > night, Severus is sleeping because DD made it so by a potion or > spell. A spell is more probable, Snape could sniff out a potion. > > The only possible motive for DD to do this, and it's tenuous at > best, would be if Snape was trying to actively keep Dumbledore from > going after the cave Horcrux. Maybe Dumbledore told Snape he'd found > another Horcrux and was planning to take Harry with him and Snape > argued, sneering about Harry being a liability. So DD resorted to a > sleeping spell for just that night. The argument against this idea > is DD would want Snape fully functional every time he leaves the > castle. > Now Hexicon: Perhaps DD told Snape, in effect, "Severus, I'm going on another little "trip," and you remember what happened after the last one [ring, burned hand], so please get some rest, as I may need you to help me when I return." As for McGonagall, maybe DD told her not to include Snape on that particular patrol shift. Or do we know that Snape didn't know DD was gone? From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Sep 4 16:52:56 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 16:52:56 -0000 Subject: Possible Horcrux Complication In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139517 lupinlore: *(snip)* > The problem is that Voldemort may very well know that the diary has > been destroyed. *(snip)* > Dumbledore is basing the idea that there are seven soul shards on > Voldemort's talk about the magical significance of seven. *(snip)* > For that matter, what happens to the soul shard inside a Horcrux >when the Horcrux is destroyed? Does it return to the wizard? If >so, then the danger of Voldemort creating a replacement Horcrux >would seem to be acute. Or does it go directly to where ever bad >little wizards go? If the latter is the case, then creating a >replacement might well be much more difficult, particularly if there >is some kind of limit on how often a soul can be divided. Ceridwen: I think it would depend on whether the significance, in LV's mind, is on how many horcruxes, or how many pieces of soul are removed. If his fixation is on the number of horcruxes, then he may have created another one to replace the diary. If the matter is of how many pieces of shattered soul he removes, then he won't. Unless, as you say, the piece reverts to its original owner upon the destruction of its host. However, IMO, if it did come back, then LV would know that a horcrux had been destroyed, and could take measures to replace it, ensuring a never-ending stream of horcruxes and an extremely daunting task for Our Heroes, as they would have to be destroying horcruxes until the end of the Final Battle. lupinlore: >How can they know that Voldemort didn't change his mind and go with >another mystical number, such as nine? Ceridwen: I don't think they can. They can only go with their most recent information and hope that LV hasn't changed his mind. On another post about splitting the soul: I don't think it matters how many times the soul is split. The extreme degree of evil is in removing a split and creating a horcrux. I think, just since the text doesn't address it, that the split soul continues to reside in its original body, like fraying curtains in a window, unless one is removed. If something else happened to the split soul other than remaining as a damaged part of the original, I think it would have been mentioned somehow, by one of the 'mouthpiece' characters (Dumbledore, or Hermione). And, I truly doubt if there's an actual limit to how many pieces of soul can be removed. Though, I think that first, each time the soul is split, the fragments get smaller since the original soul it comes from is smaller, and second, that there will come a point where the soul (including if it is in fragments from other killings) becomes so small that dividing it any further would be at the least, difficult, if not downright impossible. Ceridwen. From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Sep 4 16:57:30 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 16:57:30 -0000 Subject: Killing tears the soul apart redux. In-Reply-To: <431A1C54.11043.A2F3A5@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139518 Tammy Rizzo: > Okay, page number and edition and all that. > American hard cover edition, chapter 23, > 'Horcruxes', page 498, fifth line from the > top of the page. Slughorn is discussing horcruxes > with young Tom, in the true pensieve memory. houyhnhnm: I am aware of the statement by Slughorn, but Slughorn makes the statement when he is discussing the creation of horcruxes, and he first uses the word "murder". He then does use the word "killing", but to reinforce the word "murder". As Caius Marcius pointed out in post # 139481, "murder" and "killing" are not necessarily synonymous in the Judeo-Christian tradition (or in most others). Lupin and Sirius are quite prepared to kill Pettigrew. They do not show much concern for either the legal or the spiritual ramifications of such an act. In GoF, we learn that Crouch authorized aurors to use the killing curse during the first war. It would appear that the distinction between killing and murder holds in the WW as well, at least among the more conventionally minded. I agree with you that Dumbledore would probably view the taking of human life, under any circumstances, as damaging to the soul, along with other kinds of bad acts, though none of this is explicitly stated. I also agree with you about healing and forgiveness. I guess what I am really arguing against is the use of pat formulas to interpret either plot or character in HP--what I would call the fundamentalist approach. I don't think there is any evidnce for such a simplistic viewpoint in the books, just as the characters are not black and white. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Sep 4 17:00:43 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 17:00:43 -0000 Subject: Possible Horcrux Complication In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139519 Lupinlore: > I've been thinking about the whole Horcrux plotline, and something > occured to me. Dumbledore and Harry are going on the assumption > that there are only four horcruxes left (five if you count > Voldemort himself). This is based in part on the idea that > Voldemort can't feel when one of his horcruxes has been destroyed. > > The problem is that Voldemort may very well know that the diary > has been destroyed. In fact, Dumbledore seems to believe that he > does know this, based on his statement about the power of > Voldemort's anger when he found out what Lucius had done. > > Given this, how can Dumbledore and Harry be sure that Voldemort > has not constructed another Horcrux to replace the diary? Jen: One important bit of wisdom Dumbledore imparted to Harry with the Riddle/LV memories was just how irrational and fixated Voldemort is in the throes of obsession. I think DD wanted to hammer this idea home--'Voldemort can be defeated because his weakness is his predictabilty'. He will always underestimate love magic; his protections on the Horcruxes will manifest his fear of death and darkness; his obsession with his own ideas will consistently defeat him i.e., having to use Harry for the 'blood of his enemy' most likely will backfire on him. As such, I think Voldemort will defeat himself once again by NOT doing the obvious and sealing another Horcrux. More on this, but another comment by Lupinlore first: Lupinlore: > How many times can one divide one's soul? Is there a limit? > Dumbledore is basing the idea that there are seven soul shards on > Voldemort's talk about the magical significance of seven. But how > can they be sure. How can they know that Voldemort didn't change > his mind and go with another mystical number, such as nine? Jen: I bet there's not a theoretical limit, but maybe a practical one? Since we're just musing about the process, it seems possible at some point the divisions would start to backfire, and cause a self- implosion of some sort. Total speculation. I'm visualizing sort of a critical mass point with dividing the soul and after that, unexpected problems could start to occur. But about the number 7. This was what I meant by Voldemort being defeated by his own obsessions. Just as he fixated on the idea of having certain trophies from a young age, he's also fixated on number 7 as 'the most powerfully magical number'. His psychological profile indicates an irrational need for control, as well as an abysmally deficient feedback-loop for changing his strategy in the case of failure. Voldemort didn't view what happened at Godric's Hollow as a defeat so much as proof his Horcrux strategy was working! He's now obsessed with killing Harry himself and can't see he is 'handing Harry weapons' with each failure, making it almost impossible now to kill Harry by his own hand. Yet Voldemort can't alter his obsession to kill Harry himself. This will be his downfall. I just don't think his psychological make-up allows him to reassess and alter those things he is irrational and obsessive about. Even with evidence to the contrary, that Harry will be difficult to kill and has a proven ability to destroy his Horcruxes, Voldemort will continue to ride-out his 'most magically powerful 7-Horcrux plan' because he's psychologically incapable of doing anything else. Jen From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Sep 4 17:16:44 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 17:16:44 -0000 Subject: Killing tears the soul apart redux. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139520 *(earlier posts skipped)* aussie objects: > Harry (and JKR) still considers the EXECUTION of a murderer to > damage the soul. Why? Harry's reason in POA to stop Lupin and Black > from killing Peter together was "I don't reckon my dad would've > wanted them (Lupin & Black) to become killers -- just for you > (Peter)." Ceridwen: I would disagree here. Lupin and Sirius are not empowered by a dispassionate state to oversee to a legally sanctioned and ordered execution. They are acting outside of the law, and without any form of hearing from PP. What they know, what they can prove, are one thing. Extenuating circumstances are things they don't know (although we *now* believe there weren't any). They were about to commit exactly the same sort of miscarriage of justice as that which happened to Sirius - being sentenced without due process. And they had no reason, at least mentioned in canon, that would have indicated that justice would not be served if PP was brought in. So, their killing of PP would actually be murder. This is not a situation that could not be resolved otherwise. There are still courts, and he could be captured and taken to the proper authorities, which would also go toward proving Sirius's innocence. They were only thinking of revenge, a base and discouraged emotion. It would not have been execution, it would have been murder. > I also notice the OOTP guards in Hogwarts in HBP didn't AK any DE. > The only fatality during the battle came from a stray curse from > another DE that hit their own wizard. JKR protected the Order and DA > members from "ripping their soul apart". Ceridwen: OotP Guards in Hogwarts would be mindful of the possibility of someone not involved wandering along, say a student on his or her way to the hospital wing or coming to see what the commotion was about. Contrasted with the DE shooting off fatal Unforgivables every which way. Not using a killing curse is acting responsibly under the conditions. And, in most honorable missions of this sort, overkill is discouraged. > (PS: JKR may differ greatly from Mosaic law in this case. If your > occupation is a military or police snipper, feel free to save my > hide if I am the hostage.) Ceridwen: You and me both! And I doubt if either one of us wishes an officer or soldier to go around splitting his or her soul on our behalf, so I doubt if 'killing' under those circumstances, or even by accident, is considered the same as 'murder' by whatever power it is that splits the soul. Ceridwen. From nrenka at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 17:27:50 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 17:27:50 -0000 Subject: Killing tears the soul apart redux. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139521 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > houyhnhnm: > > I am aware of the statement by Slughorn, but Slughorn makes the > statement when he is discussing the creation of horcruxes, and he > first uses the word "murder". He then does use the word "killing", > but to reinforce the word "murder". As Caius Marcius pointed out > in post # 139481, "murder" and "killing" are not necessarily > synonymous in the Judeo-Christian tradition (or in most others). It's all in the semantics, because I actually read that statement differently: Sluggy is talking about murder, but he then reverts to a general statement in place of a specific one, and lays out a categorical statement about the Potterverse. It all depends in how you read it, and it easily goes either way. > I don't think there is any evidnce for such a simplistic viewpoint > in the books, just as the characters are not black and white. How about this, though: the characters are not black and white, but there are indeed things in the Potterverse which are eminently so. It's simply that the characters, being human and thus imperfect, never completely reach one state or the other but partake of both. I can easily envision the law of the Potterverse being, point blank, that killing (especially with AK, which is the absolute transformation of the intent to kill into the pure action) rips the soul. That doesn't mean that souls can't be healed and the rips repaired, but it does mean that the action itself is categorically damaging, no matter the extenuating circumstances. The circumstances come into play later, as each individual has to deal with what he has done. This fits in with JKR's comments about what makes Voldemort so evil is that he kills, and dead is dead is dead. -Nora gives the short form: killing is categorically evil, but forgiveness and absolution can obtain From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Sep 4 17:27:56 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 17:27:56 -0000 Subject: Snape's Attack on Flitwick In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139522 Jen: [...] > So McGonagall sent Flitwick for Snape, the only > Order professor not aware of the battle. One > suggestion for Snape Stupefying Flitwick (see > more below ) is when Snape heard DE's were in > the castle, he knew he would have to assume his > DE-persona and didn't want Flitwick following > him and interfering if he appeared to be on the DE side. houyhnhnm: Besides the rumour about Flitwick's duelling experience in his youth, there is also the fact that he was one of those patrolling outside the maze during the Third Task of the Tri-Wizard Tournament. It suggests that despite his small stature, Flitwick could be a formidable opponent. I think your explanation is the likely one. As for Lupin's remark, it is just Lupin reacting in a state of shock and dismay. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Sep 4 17:34:14 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 17:34:14 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139523 Eggplant: > If you were 16 and in Harry's position what would you have done? I'm > not asking what a moral paragon would have done, nor am I asking what > you hope you would have done, I'm asking what you honestly think you > would have done in that class on that day. As for me, I'm certain I > would have kept on reading the notes in the margin and kept my mouth > shut about it. *(snip)* Ceridwen: Yes, I would have kept it, used it, and kept my mouth shut. I don't think I would have let Hermione know I'd kept it, either, once my new book came in. Things get quieter that way! However, for debate... This is getting to be a long, though interesting, debate. I personally think it was cheating, just because he's supposed to be learning, not deliberately going off to improve. He doesn't seem to understand why this or that is added, and he doesn't seem to understand the theory, or the possible interactions between ingredients, good or bad. They aren't his notes, but he takes the praise. In my mind, it's the same thing as copying someone else's test or homework. It's detremental to his learning. Yet, it's N.E.W.T. Potions. He should have learned all of that by now, and been ready to take his first steps at improving on an established formula. Still, that doesn't negate the similarity to copying from someone else. So, I asked the husband. He's got his own idea of right and wrong, and he's taken all sorts of stuff like this in college. Even though this is more like high school. I figured I would at least get a different perspective from asking him. He sees using the notes as being all right, since the teacher gave him the book. The teacher should have known that the book was marked, in his opinion, so once he approves it by giving it to Harry, then the use of the changes is all right, even sanctioned. What was wrong, according to him, was that Harry did not return the book when he got his own. Since it wasn't his book, he had no right to keep it without permission. I asked if it would be okay since he exchanged the new one in order to keep the old. He said sure, *if the teacher agreed* to the switch. Since I'm already stumbling along, tripping toward one side and then the other, on this issue, I'll take the husband's word. Even if it does go against the copying from someone else's test or homework. Harry was wrong not to return the book he borrowed, substituting another in its place, without informing the book's owner or person responsible for it. Ceridwen. From schumar1999 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 18:18:10 2005 From: schumar1999 at yahoo.com (Marianne S.) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 18:18:10 -0000 Subject: Snape's Attack on Flitwick In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139524 Carodave: I remember (don't have my book, sorry) that there was a welt of some kind on Flitwick's forehead, presumably where Snape's curse hit. I don't think he could have just fainted. Marianne S: I fainted once and got a huge bruise/welt on my cheek where I hit the van door. It's possible to get a big welt from "just fainting." However, I don't think Flitwick fainted. I believe he was cursed by Snape much the same way Dumbledore froze Harry or Hermione cursed Neville in PS/SS. That is, Snape cursed him not an enemy but as someone on the same side who just needs Flitwick to not interfere. This also gives him a reason to keep Hermione and Luna out of danger. Had Snape not been on the side of "good" - I don't think he would have thought twice of killing Flitwick, Hermione, and Luna now that the death eaters were in school. JMO From finwitch at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 18:22:28 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 18:22:28 -0000 Subject: Tom Riddle's Visit to Dumbledore's Office - He Tampered with His Memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139525 >From HBP: > > For a second, Harry was on the verge of shouting a pointless warning: > He was sure that Voldemort's hand had twitched toward his pocket and > his wand; but then the moment had passed, Voldemort had turned away, > the door was closing, and he was gone. > > > vmonte: > Tom's specialty seems to be messing with peoples memories. I think > that what we are witnessing here is not a penseive memory that was > tampered with, but rather a person who has had their memories > altered. > > I think that Tom's visit had more to do with either getting > information from Dumbledore, or perhaps making his mind more pliable > to the idea of letting another DE into the school. Finwitch: I think - I think that what TR did then, was the DADA-teacher curse. After that he altered Dumbledore's memory... Perhaps, with Dumbledore dead and McGonagall doing the hiring as Headmistress, that curse is finally lifted... who are the people she'll hire? I only hope she won't be cursed as well. Of course, we may never know the truth... then again, maybe Harry will... Hmm... Maybe Dumbledore's will leaves the Pensieve to Harry? and Fawkes? Finwitch From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Sep 4 18:23:40 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 18:23:40 -0000 Subject: Possible Horcrux Complication In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139526 lupinlore: [...] > The problem is that Voldemort may very well know > that the diary has been destroyed. In fact, Dumbledore > seems to believe that he does know this, based on > his statement about the power of Voldemort's anger > when he found out what Lucius had done. houyhnhnm: I think he knows it now, because Lucius told him, but didn't actually feel it happening. lupinlore: [...] > How many times can one divide one's soul? Is there a limit? houyhnhnm: And is the soul divided exactly in two each time? In that case the limit would be 0 (but the number of possible splittings would be infinite). Does this mean that Voldemort lost half of his soul when the diary was destroyed, but only 1/4 when Dumbledore destroyed the ring? Does he have only 1/64 of his soul left in his body? Perhaps this is the key to destroying Voldemort-encourage him to go on making horcruxes until there is so little left in his body, he turns back into Vapormort. *Then* go after the horcruxes. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 18:35:23 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 18:35:23 -0000 Subject: Snape's Attack on Flitwick In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139527 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "carodave92" wrote: > > mhbobbin: > > > > Valiant attempt, Valky, but Flitwick's battle hardiness (assuming > > he's weak and that canon deliberately misleads) does not give > Snape > > a legitimate pro-Order anti-Voldemort reason to take Flitwick out > > unless you are saying Snape knocks Flitwick out of the battle "for > > his own good". This seems like a stretch. > > > > Carodave: > I remember (don't have my book, sorry) that there was a welt of some > kind on Flitwick's forehead, presumably where Snape's curse hit. I > don't think he could have just fainted. If Dumbledore thought > enough of Flitwick's skill to have him on patrol that night, then I > remain Dumbledore's (wo)man enough to trust that Flitwick can carry > his own...except when blindsided by someone he thought was an ally. > After all, DD could have skipped over Flitwick and had another Order > member patrolling, no need to use Flitwick if he's not a strong > asset. > > Carodave Carol responds: To my knowledge, Flitwick is not an Order member. I think Snape knew that he had to get to the tower without hindrance (possibly in the desperate hope of saving Dumbledore, whom he did not know had swallowed the Horcrux poison). Also, as others have pointed out, Flitwick was a lot safer unconscious in Snape's office than he would have been attempting to fight DEs with vanishing charms or hover charms. (We haven't seen any examples of Flitwick's courage, have we?) If Snape were ESE!, surely he would have killed Flitwick rather than merely stupefying him--and the girls as well, instead of getting them safely out of the way by instructing them to help Flitwick. Carol From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Sep 4 18:57:39 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 18:57:39 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139528 "Ceridwen" wrote: > Harry was wrong not to return the > book he borrowed, substituting > another in its place, without informing > the book's owner or person > responsible for it. Even if you're right, even if it was wrong to switch books it was certainly not VERY wrong, and we can tell the difference because we have seen things that are VERY wrong, like tying a 14 year old boy to a tombstone and torturing him so badly he wanted to die, or animating a corpse to kill for you, or making a child carve words into his hand, or murdering Dumbledore. Right or wrong if I were Harry I am certain I would feel I had earned that book, I would feel I deserved it. And if that's the worse thing he does in his life then he's a saint. Eggplant From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 19:13:39 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 19:13:39 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139529 > Finwitch: > I also find it interesting that when following instructions young SS > wrote down, Harry's doing a *better* job than Severus did those days? > I find that rather odd. And why did Hermione say it's a woman's > writing? Why didn't any of them recognise the hand-writing? WAS it > truly SS who wrote them? > > Makes me think... maybe it *was* Lily who wrote those notes, trying > to help young Severus... and Harry could read them because he has > Lily's eyes.. Slughorn keeps on about Lily! zgirnius: Lily wrote them, (and kept writing them all year) and Snape couldn't read them? That wasn't too helpful... I think the explanation might be a lot simpler. Young Severus decided his book's instructions needed inprovement after his first attemps (in class) did not work as well as Severus would have liked. So the first attempts Sluggie remembers as excerllent, though not quite as good as Harry's, would not have been as good as the results that can be gotten using the improvements. From Nanagose at aol.com Sun Sep 4 19:24:35 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 19:24:35 -0000 Subject: Snape's Attack on Flitwick In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139530 > mhbobbin: > Although I lean to believing that Snape killed Dumbledore on > Dumbledore's orders, and that Snape isn't really working for > Voldemort, I am most troubled by my inability to reconcile Snape's > attack on Flitwick with this theory. Christina: I think Order!Snape makes for a much more compelling story and fills what I think is an important niche in the books (a person that is a bad/mean/spiteful person but still works against evil). It's interesting that you should find the Snape/Flitwick incident detrimental to your theory, because I've always used it as evidence of Snape's loyalty to the Order (which I guess just goes to show the wide interpretations that are possible in the HP books)! I've always thought the better question was: why doesn't Snape *kill* Flitwick? He certainly seems capable. Also, why doesn't he stun Hermione and Luna? He knows that Hermione is a smart kid and *very* meddlesome. If he had no issues about stupefying Flitwick, why not be sure that Hermione is out of the way also? To me, it seems as though Snape was trying to get everyone out of his way in the *least* harmful way possible. >Jen: >But it's a little odd no one bothered to ask Flitwick any questions, >since he could confirm what happened. Christina: I don't think it really mattered to anyone. I mean, who really cared whether or not Snape hurt Flitwick- if Snape killed Dumbledore, then that was enough. >Jen: >I wonder if Flitwick saw something Snape didn't want him to see? And >Snape memory-charmed him before Stupefying him? Christina: Ohhh, I like it! What *was* Snape doing that night? Dumbledore says to "wake Severus," but that doesn't mean he was really asleep. >Jen: >The only thing countering a fainting incident was Hermione saying >Snape 'Stupefied' Flitwick and she usually knows her spells. Christina: Actually, Hermione has no evidence that Snape actually stupefied Flitwick- at the time even she believed that he had just collapsed. It was only in retrospect that she *figured* that's what must have happened. Here's what she said, (HBP, US Ed., page 619) "...He just burst his way into Snape's office and we heard him saying that Snape had to go back with him and help and then we heard a loud thump and Snape came hurtling out of his room....He said Professor Flitwick had collapsed and that we should go and take care of him while he - while he went to help fight the Death Eaters....We went into his office to see if we could help Professor Flitwick and found him unconscious on the floor...and oh, it's so obvious now, Snape must have Stupefied Flitwick, but we didn't realize, Harry, we didn't realize, we just let Snape go!" (end quote) Flitwick did seem distressed when he ran into Snape's office (Hermione said that she didn't even think that he noticed she and Luna were there), so maybe he fainted in his panic. Still, that said... >Marianne S: >However, I don't think Flitwick fainted. I believe he was cursed by >Snape much the same way Dumbledore froze Harry or Hermione cursed >Neville in PS/SS. That is, Snape cursed him not an enemy but as >someone on the same side who just needs Flitwick to not interfere. >This also gives him a reason to keep Hermione and Luna out of danger. Christina: I agree. Even if it does turn out that Snape has ultimately rejoined the Death Eaters, I don't think he came to that decision until he found Dumbledore on the tower and saw how slim his options had become. I think his actions regarding Flitwick, Hermione, and Luna were those of a double agent in a highly precarious position who needed to be able to mold into whatever role was required for the situation at hand *without interference*. If Flitwick had followed Snape down the hallway and they ran into some Death Eaters, Snape would have been stuck in a pretty tough situation. He would have been forced to turn on either Flitwick or the Death Eaters, costing him his position as a double agent no matter which option he chose or what side he was truly on. I personally think that Snape is still good, but I think his actions in this particular situation don't really support any interpretation. Snape is a double agent. Whether he's working for Dumbledore or Voldemort (or still considering which side to fall on), blowing his cover is the worst thing he can do. Which is why he needed Flitwick (and Hermione and Luna) safely out of his way. Christina From predigirl1 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 19:15:34 2005 From: predigirl1 at yahoo.com (Alex Hogan) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 12:15:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Sexy Snape? In-Reply-To: <20050903150142.91513.qmail@web53301.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050903191534.68979.qmail@web42102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139531 Luckdragon: > I wonder how many people would truly find Snape as attractive had > Alan Rickman not portrayed him in the movies. Alex says: I have thought about that many times. I have almost every movie Alan Rickman has made, and I am thrilled that he played Snape (more Rickman is always good!). But he is quite the polar opposite of the way Snape is described in canon. Nothing remotely hot about HIM. Sexy Snape is definitely movie corruption in my book, then again, bad guys CAN be quite attractive! From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Sun Sep 4 16:21:55 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 16:21:55 -0000 Subject: Sexy Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139532 >vmonte responds: >Actually Elyse, I think that there are many fans out there that >think >like you do. I do not, but your post has opened my eyes to how some >fans think about Snape. Elyse: Glad to have helped! :) vmonte: >If you actually look at the way Snape interacts with people you can >pretty much get an idea about what kind of lover this guy would be. Elyse: Hee Hee... Do you know what a potentially explosive and dangerous question this is? I could speculate of course.. (uncontrollable giggling) vmonte: >I know that Snape has multitudes of fans, but I really don't think >that JKR is writing books to tell children that they should not >trust >their gut instincts about people. Wouldn't it be like telling >abused >children to: >'Shut up, you don't know what you are talking about. Whoa!!! How did we end up with abused children here? I know Snape is nasty, mean , savagely sadistic, but he is hardly comparable to a child abuser! This is quite an unfair leap youre taking here IMO and its not as if shes writing the books with abused children in mind. Also I think that what JKR wants to show children is that just because people are ugly and mean doesnt mean they do not possess other worthy redeeming qualities I think Julie summed it up very well when she wrote: >Another life lesson children learn when they >mature into adults is that there is more to a person than what >is apparent on the surface, and that there are often reasons >behind a person's behavior. Knowing why someone acts in a >certain way (he was abused, experienced a trauma, etc) does >not excuse that person's bad behavior, but it does allow one >to understand and even empathize. (Harry finding out that his >father and Sirius did on at least one occasion bully Snape >is an example). vmonte: Children really do know what this kind of teacher is all about. It's the adults that are clueless. Elyse: Come now, adults are more capable than you give them credit for surely? Not meaning to be sarcastic here, but in that case we might as well turn the world government into primary schoolers' hands and see the results... Elyse who is still speculating about Snape as a lover.... From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 18:12:47 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 18:12:47 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139533 Eggplant wrote: "Actually I don't think Hermione has much understanding of the theory behind potions, I say that because she has never made an original potion, neither has any other student." Del replies: First, I don't consider making her own potion a valid test to determine whether or not Hermione understands the art of potion-making. One can understand car mechanics or electronics without ever putting an engine or a computer together. Hermione might simply not be interested in making her own potion, which would be very much in character. She usually needs to have a good reason to create something (Polyjuice Potion, Charmed Galleons), she doesn't create stuff just for the fun of it (unlike the Twins, for example). But if she needs to create something new, then she often can manage it. Second, the potion class is the only place where she can legally have access to a cauldron. But they are always asked to prepare a known potion when in that class. Hermione wasn't around the *only* time Slughorn let the students have fun. So expecting her to create her own potion when she actually doesn't have the opportunity to do so is quite unfair IMO. Third, Ernie did try to make an original potion. He failed, but he tried. So that's not "any other student". Fourth, we haven't heard of Lily or Snape making their own potions when they were at Hogwarts. So I fail to see why you are holding Hermione to a standard that even the two known genius potion-makers don't seem to have reached. Eggplant wrote: "Hermione knew a spell that would tell her what was in a mixture of poisons and had memorized the antidotes to the individual poisons and knew how to mix them together, but there is no evidence she had the slightest idea why any of it worked." Del replies: What exactly do you mean by "why any of it worked"?? Hermione knew the laws coming into play. What else should she have known? Del earlier: "And yes, following instructions can be the very best way to learn some things" Eggplant replied: "Following lousy instructions will not give you a better understanding than following excellent instructions. " Del replies: That wasn't the point you were arguing. You were arguing that following instructions (*any* instructions) can't help someone learn something. I showed that you are wrong. The quality of the instructions was never part of the argument. Eggplant wrote: "If you were 16 and in Harry's position what would you have done? I'm not asking what a moral paragon would have done, nor am I asking what you hope you would have done, I'm asking what you honestly think you would have done in that class on that day." Del replies: Will you believe me if I tell you? I happened to be best friends with the class top student. I could have copied his homework and his classwork any time I wanted. But I didn't. What I did is ask him how to do things, and if he could help me figure out how things worked. I wanted to be able to do things myself, because I was very aware that what really mattered was the final exams. Moreover, I couldn't have used the HBP notes the way Harry did, even if I had wanted to, because we were supposed to explain everything we did, to write a report for every experiment we did. So there's no way I could have used tricks without the teacher noticing right away. However, when I was just a few years older, in University, I came accross a situation that was very close to Harry's situation, except that everyone was doing it. All the lab pairs would acquire the reports of the previous year students and use them to write their own reports and make their own experiments (the teachers were perfectly aware of what was going on, in case you wondered). But I quickly discovered that doing this made me extremely dumb. Sure we got good grades, but I didn't understand anything of what we were doing. So I played the game so we wouldn't get bad grades but I made sure to study the reports closely in order to understand all the principles involved. Of course, you don't have to believe me. Del From fabian.peng-karrholm at chalmers.se Sun Sep 4 19:16:40 2005 From: fabian.peng-karrholm at chalmers.se (Fabian Peng Krrholm) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:16:40 +0200 Subject: Evil Slytherin (was Re: Missing Horcruxes & Harry's Protection from Lily) In-Reply-To: <20050903230410.73560.qmail@web53115.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050903230410.73560.qmail@web53115.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <431B4818.5070108@chalmers.se> No: HPFGUIDX 139534 >Fabian wrote: The Locket in question is supposed to have the >Slytherin Snake on it, and I hope and think they would pay a >little more attention to a locket with such an evil brand on >it, especially if it can't be opened. >Juli: Why is the S (as in Slytherine) an evil brand???? Oh come on, all evil wizards have come out of one house? In our muggle-world I don't think this would be allowed to pass, and that house would have been reformed or just removed. Evil seems to be more 'ok' in the wizarding world than anywhere else, which also makes it more interesting. I was glad Slughorn came along, since otherwise it would have been a little too much of a enter-slytherin-and-become-a-villain type of thing. /Fabian From lady.indigo at gmail.com Sun Sep 4 19:29:19 2005 From: lady.indigo at gmail.com (lady.indigo at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 15:29:19 -0400 Subject: Academic dishonesty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <63378ee705090412294cecd04b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139535 On 9/4/05, eggplant107 wrote: >>Hermione knew a spell that would tell her what was in a mixture of poisons and had memorized the antidotes to the individual poisons and knew how to mix them together, but there is no evidence she had the slightest idea why any of it worked.<< Hermione knew (and, I'm assuming, understood) the basic principle of how antidotes needed to be mixed, which had nothing to do with a spell. Just because she's bound by the recipe doesn't mean she doesn't know why that recipe is how it is. Instead I think she's rulebound and, I agree with whoever said this before, has some trouble thinking out of the box. She may not even see the need to do so; she's never had a problem until now. >>Following lousy instructions will not give you a better understanding than following excellent instructions.<< The instructions aren't *lousy*. They create the potion they're supposed to create, just a weaker form of it or with some mild side effects. I disgree with the idea that the book is outdated altogether. Slughorn takes too much time buttering students up to be the most effective teacher he could be, but if the textbook is updated regularly then he must have had the option of changing the edition he recommends in the 30+ years he's been teaching. And he just seems way too flexible and intent on showing off his bright young stars to handicap them like that. (Plus, every other student save Ron and Harry had to buy that book in the store. Wouldn't it have been replaced with an updated edition? Based on what I know of textbooks, anyway, which I admit isn't all that much.) >>And suppose your debating skills were such that you actually convinced me that it was a tad underhanded, what would I do then? I would have kept on reading the notes in the margin and kept my mouth shut about it.<< But the debate is whether or not Harry is wrong, yes? Not whether or not he's only human, or entitled to shaky ethics if it actually were the wrong thing to do. If we've gotten into 'it's cheating, but come on, the kid's gonna save the world' or whatever your justification is then I almost feel like we're done here. And to answer your question, if I were Harry I would never have done it in the first place. Maybe if the second or third lesson was the first time I'd discovered the Prince's writing...but the first time was a CONTEST, and none of the other students had the time or opportunity to research a better method like mine. That makes the advantage I got unfair. And even if I'd wanted to win the Felix Felicis so badly that I was tempted, I'd probably have been far too scared of getting caught. In a contest environment I'd have been worried of getting suspended for it, or at the very least kicked out of Potions which I needed for my ambitions of becoming an Auror, etc. (Paranoid of me, yeah, but I tend to be sometimes.) If it had been the other incidents, where there's no prize but teacher's favor at stake, I'd have done it only for the sake of getting the memory. (Which I think had been asked of Harry by then, yes?) If the memory wasn't at stake then I'd have shown Slughorn the book as soon as I got praise for a potion that wasn't my idea. I doubt the book would have been taken away; instead he'd have tested those modifications and probably shared them with the whole class so we could all test our ability and understanding on the same terms. That's not even totally because I feel cheating is wrong, and that at the time Harry had no justification for doing it - he didn't yet need to butter Slughorn up to get the memory, he probably would've gotten good grades without it if he'd just read the additional theories and theorums in the textbook. It's also because my own personal pride wouldn't let me take credit for something that was someone else's idea. When I pose a theory on here, for instance, if I know I'm saying it because I've seen it elsewhere I give credit to that source. If I overlook doing that, I definitely do it when someone says 'interesting idea!' or whatever. I don't deserve that praise. Whoever I read it from does. I feel like a fraud even in an informal environment when I take credit for what's not mine. - Lady Indigo From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Sep 4 19:44:41 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 19:44:41 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139536 "finwitch" wrote: > maybe it *was* Lily who wrote those > notes, trying to help young Severus That thought occurred to me too. Perhaps Snape was flunking out of Potions so Lily wrote helpful little hints in his book to aid her boyfriend. I also thought that maybe it was Lily who in private started calling Severus by the silly little pet name "The Half Blood Prince". Eggplant From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 20:01:23 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 20:01:23 -0000 Subject: Snape's Attack on Flitwick In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139537 > Carol responds: > To my knowledge, Flitwick is not an Order member. I think Snape knew > that he had to get to the tower without hindrance (possibly in the > desperate hope of saving Dumbledore, whom he did not know had > swallowed the Horcrux poison). Also, as others have pointed out, > Flitwick was a lot safer unconscious in Snape's office than he would > have been attempting to fight DEs with vanishing charms or hover > charms. (We haven't seen any examples of Flitwick's courage, have we?) Alla: If Snape is suspecting that DE are in the castle and he may need to fight them, wouldn't it make sense for him to accept ANY help he can get? And I think we saw that Flitwick knows many very different charms, I speculate that he is a good duelist ( I thought I remembered someone mentioning this fact in the books, but I could be totally wrong, so I won't swear by it) Regardless, though, I think it is a reasonable extrapolation to make that by virtue of Flitwick being an experinced Charms Master, he could hold his own in the duel quite well. Carol: > If Snape were ESE!, surely he would have killed Flitwick rather than > merely stupefying him--and the girls as well, instead of getting them > safely out of the way by instructing them to help Flitwick. > Alla: That is a possibility OR if Snape is OFH and have not decided what to do yet till he checks out the situation on the Tower and figures out which side is losing in his opinion, then he may want to be alone on the Tower and does not need anyone else there, who may be able to fight him. JMO of course, Alla. From silmariel at telefonica.net Sun Sep 4 20:46:00 2005 From: silmariel at telefonica.net (silmariel) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 22:46:00 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sexy Snape? In-Reply-To: <20050903150142.91513.qmail@web53301.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050903150142.91513.qmail@web53301.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200509042246.00754.silmariel@telefonica.net> No: HPFGUIDX 139538 > Elyse: > It has crossed my mind actually, and that only makes me find > him more attractive not less. > vmonte responds: > Actually Elyse, I think that there are many fans out there that think > like you do. I do not, but your post has opened my eyes to how some > fans think about Snape. > Luckdragon: > I wonder how many people would truly find Snape as attractive had Alan > Rickman not portrayed him in the movies. Silmariel: Allow me to delurk. As I don't find Alan particularly appealing, and I still have a mental image of Snape that is not Rickman's, I may help. The usual ESL warning. > Now Alan is a very sexy man, and > does not have a "hook nose" or look "greasy". Almost every male character in Marguerite de Valois had terrible hair, it goes in some historical films that actually try to reflect a little how things were. That doesn't make them unattractive. A hook nose alone won't make a male unattractive (Alvar Mayor counts?), I think. > Alan also has a very deep hypnotic voice and a nice physique. I don't find Rickman sexy by his looks or body but I admit he has a fine voice. Not that I find him ugly, it's just the kind of man I wouldn't look twice. And he is way too old. I don't find him sexy in other films. Really. > If a lesser known actor had represented Snape in a more accurate way I do not think we would be as enthralled with him in this way. I tend to like Hamlet whoever is the guy portraying him, even when he is played by actors I particularly don't like (Mel Gibson). So I don't think all is on Rickman's. I agree he's a good actor, of course. I like the way he uses his eyes. But then, that's something Snape himself does a lot. > Loking at canon there is nothing other than his intelligence that makes him > appealing in any way. Behavior and skills. He lurks in the shadows, he is misterious, he can be cold or vehement, he is dangerous, he is cruel or verges it, he's a good duelist, he has secrets, he's *young* (I can't but compare with Rickman's Snape, who I can't help seeing as nearing 50 years old) for a wizard, he can act, deceive, outsmart, win. He has killed Dumbledore (if he is bad, that's a fantastic thing in itself, if he is good, it is also a fantastic thing in terms of raising the stakes). A top gladiator in his arena, they use to have a bunch of groupies following them. I don't think it's intelligence alone. Percy, Bill, Lupin are intelligent but they don't enter the stage stealing the camera focus as Snape does. He has edge. > His movements have been likened to a bat or spider, he has pasty skin, beady black eyes, lank black greasy hair, There's people that like the bat and spider imaginery, not everyone hates spiders by default and bat&vampire are a very close call, vampires use to be depicted as sexy, nosferatus apart. I already said greasy is not a problem, but in Spinner's end he apparently corrected this: 'long black hair parted in curtains'... rather neutral, the statement, and long black hair is not exactly a bad thing, it's usual enough for good looking heroes. His eyes are not beady, only black, in Spinner's End... Hey, maybe Jo is seeing too much of Rickman in Snape :) just a joke, but is very noticeable the change in description in Spinner's End, it didn't give me that ugly depiction of Snape, rather a neutral one. The thing is, he doesn't need good looks in order to be attractive, he just needs to be plain in that aspect. > he lip curls sneeringly when he speaks, he has spittle in the > corners of his mouth, he only wears black clothing, he obviously has a mean > disposition, gets off on other people's discomfort Deadly right, you are. That's it. You know who also fit this description? Darth Maul, that sexy beast with almost no screen time nor lines and a 'surprising' (well, for some) fan base eager to buy more books and all sorts of merchandising, even if he was dead. He *is* very nasty... but that's the point. Only wearing black gives bonus points for part of the audience, not detracts them. > and I highly doubt his voice is as attractive as Rickman's. Conceded. Maulie also had a striking voice. But I think he can manage even with a not over-the-top voice, I'm sure that knowing how to act includes knowing how to make the best of the voice you have, so as long it is not a horrible voice to start with, it's fine. > Has anyone seen the drawing Jo herself > made of Snape as she imagined him. Not a pretty picture. Yes. But then, I don't like any of her drawings and if I had to imagine characters as she draws them... eeek. I prefer reading the books and forming my mental image. Also don't know if she 'changed of idea'. Just in case anyone wonders, I don't care if he is good or bad. Back to lurking... Silmariel From trekkie at stofanet.dk Sun Sep 4 21:16:12 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 23:16:12 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sexy Snape? References: <20050903150142.91513.qmail@web53301.mail.yahoo.com> <200509042246.00754.silmariel@telefonica.net> Message-ID: <00a201c5b195$e234c600$080aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 139539 > >> Elyse: >> It has crossed my mind actually, and that only makes me find >> him more attractive not less. > >> vmonte responds: >> Actually Elyse, I think that there are many fans out there that think >> like you do. I do not, but your post has opened my eyes to how some >> fans think about Snape. > >> Luckdragon: >> I wonder how many people would truly find Snape as attractive had Alan >> Rickman not portrayed him in the movies. > > Silmariel: > Allow me to delurk. As I don't find Alan particularly appealing, and I > still > have a mental image of Snape that is not Rickman's, I may help. Now TrekkieGrrrl: First of all, I admit to being a total Rickmaniac. BUT I became that BECAUSE of Snape, not the other way around. To me, Snape was dead sexy from the first time I read the books. And that was well before I had seen any of the movies. I guess it's the tall dark villain-y man that comes into play here. In any case, yes Snape *IS* Sexy, also without Rickman's help. >Silmariel > The usual ESL warning. > > Behavior and skills. He lurks in the shadows, he is misterious, he can be > cold > or vehement, he is dangerous, he is cruel or verges it, he's a good > duelist, > he has secrets, he's *young* (I can't but compare with Rickman's Snape, > who I > can't help seeing as nearing 50 years old) for a wizard, he can act, > deceive, > outsmart, win. He has killed Dumbledore (if he is bad, that's a fantastic > thing in itself, if he is good, it is also a fantastic thing in terms of > raising the stakes). A top gladiator in his arena, they use to have a > bunch > of groupies following them. TrekkieGrrrl: Yes, people tend to forget how *young* Snape is. That is of course movie contamination, after all, Rickman is (currently) 59, but Snape is in his mid thirties. That also influences on how people percieve Snape and his actions in general (the "childish" way he sometimes act) - Snape isn't very old AND he has been through a LOT for a man his age! That doesn't necessarily *excuse* his actions but to a point it at least explains them, at least in my mind. >> His movements have been likened to a bat or spider, he has pasty skin, >> beady > black eyes, lank black greasy hair, > TrekkieGrrrl: In other words: The perfect goth ;o) >Silmariel: > Hey, maybe Jo is seeing too much of Rickman in Snape :) just a joke, but > is > very noticeable the change in description in Spinner's End, it didn't give > me > that ugly depiction of Snape, rather a neutral one. The thing is, he > doesn't > need good looks in order to be attractive, he just needs to be plain in > that > aspect. There's little doubt that JKR Is if not a downright Rickmaniac then at least a fan of Alan Rickman. And it is pretty clear that this has influenced on her views of Snape. He's less greasy and hooknosed in HBP than in the other books. >> >> and I highly doubt his voice is as attractive as Rickman's. TrekkieGrrrl: That depends on how you define attractive of course. Snape has a voice that makes people listen. >Silmariel: > Just in case anyone wonders, I don't care if he is good or bad. Back to > lurking... TrekkieGrrrl: I *DO* care. And I'm still convinced that Snape is Good. Mean and evil and generally a nasty bastard. But good. ~TrekkieGrrrl From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Sep 4 21:29:06 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:29:06 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty In-Reply-To: <63378ee705090412294cecd04b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139540 wrote: > Just because she's bound by > the recipe doesn't mean she > [ Hermione] doesn't know why > that recipe is how it is. That's true, it is not proof Hermione doesn't understand why potions work the way they do, but then again, we have never seen one shred of evidence that she does understand why potions work the way they do. The absolute proof,the thing that would end the discussion once and for all would be for Herminie to make one original potion, just one would be enough. But we have not seen that from any student. > The instructions aren't *lousy*. > They create the potion they're > supposed to create Apparently not. Even Hermione couldn't make the potion successfully following the dumb instructions in the very official Ministry approved completely uncontroversial textbook. Although I must admit it seems likely Umbridge would have loved the book. > just a weaker form of it or with > some mild side effects. And that differs from lousy because > the debate is whether or not Harry > is wrong, yes? No, not entirely. Putting the blackest possible take on Harry actions, far blacker than I think is justified, I can't come up with a word stronger than "naughty" to descried it, but other members of this group have used words like horrified, repulsed, appalled and disgusted; words of that caliber I think should be reserved for things like tying a very nice 14 year old boy to a tombstone and torturing him so horribly he wants to die. That is horrifying repulsive appalling and disgusting. > If we've gotten into 'it's cheating, > but come on, the kid's gonna save the > world' or whatever your justification > is then I almost feel like we're done here. Well, I truly and sincerely do not believe Harry cheated in any way whatsoever, but even if I'm wrong I don't care much. The reason I say that is because I know of the absolute mind numbing hell Harry has gone through over the last 6 years, things that would have turned a normal person like me who was not as intrinsically good as Harry into a monster that would make Hannibal Lector look like Mr. Rodgers. And yes, if somebody is going to save the world and most likely die in the process I'm willing to cut that person a tiny little bit of slack. > And to answer your question, if I > were Harry I would never have done > it in the first place. Hmmm. Eggplant From bigdog56.geo at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 20:50:21 2005 From: bigdog56.geo at yahoo.com (bigdog56.geo) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 20:50:21 -0000 Subject: Harry is Not a Horcrux (was Re: HBP: Assorted threads in one) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139541 Saraquel: > I also have another strong objection to the theory that Harry is a > Horcrux. We saw what the Diary Horcrux did as soon as it came into > contact with a sentient being. It sucked on Ginny's life force and > tried its absolute best to get itself a real living body again. It > doesn't strike me that Harry has been fighting a piece of > Voldemort's soul all these years. I'm not so sure. I think it may be different. With the diary and Ginny and Quirrel and not-quite-whole Voldemort, that was possession. I think that this would be a little different as long as Voldemort didn't intend on making Harry a horcrux, which is sort of what Dumbledore hints at when he talks about Voldemort unintentionally transferring some of his "powers" to Harry that night. I think that it is fairly certain that Voldemort wouldn't have made Harry a horcrux intentionally (or at least, if he wanted to, he thought that it had failed) because he seemed genuinely surprised about all of this stuff Harry can do. And let's not forget that Harry didn't begin having Voldemort's emotions until after the protection from his mom had been put in Voldy's veins, too. The love could have been keeping the evilness of Voldemort's soul down inside Harry until that point when he obtained the same protection. I haven't made up my mind about the Harry as a Horcrux thing yet. Bigdog From donjokat.kat at verizon.net Sun Sep 4 21:22:07 2005 From: donjokat.kat at verizon.net (Katharine) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 17:22:07 -0400 Subject: Don't kill me, it's my husbands fault... Time-Travel References: Message-ID: <00f401c5b196$b5c89780$c533fea9@DonJoKat> No: HPFGUIDX 139542 vmonte: My husband, Chris, likes to tease me about all my old time-travel theories (which he thought were very Luna-like of me). Anyway, because he likes to mess with my head, he mentioned that it was curious that the only two people that were not involved in the fight during the Lightning-Struck Tower, were Hermione and Luna. They were separated from most of the events in that scene because they were by Snape's office. Chris said that if anyone were to time travel back in book seven it would probably be Hermione who would not have to worry about bumping into herself at any point during the fight. Katharine: Indeed, Hermione is not involved in the fight--yet another way in which the Hermione in HBP is out of character. We've seen Hermione in action before at the DoM--with her extensive knowledge and skill, Hermione was invaluable during many tight squeezes there. And as she showed in SS/PS, OOtP, and at the end of HBP, she is willing to do what it takes to go after Voldemort, and help Harry fight him. So why does she suddenly hang around outside the office and not join in and help with the fight? It would have been a lot of help! It's instances like these throughout the book that just don't make sense when looking at Hermione's character and what she's done in the previous books. Indeed, this book is very different and incontinuous with the rest of the series in many ways. -Katharine From lolita_ns at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 22:24:04 2005 From: lolita_ns at yahoo.com (lolita_ns) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 22:24:04 -0000 Subject: Sexy Snape? In-Reply-To: <200509042246.00754.silmariel@telefonica.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139543 Silmariel wrote: > very noticeable the change in description in Spinner's End, it didn't give me > that ugly depiction of Snape, rather a neutral one. > Well, yes, obviously, since it's finally NOT through Harry's eyes that we see him - you put it correctly, it's neutral narrator on stage. SS is probably not THAT ugly as Harry describes him - his narration is coloured by his hatred of Snape. Still, SS is no Mr Beautiful. His features aside - beauty is in the eyes of the beholder - his hygiene is seriously lacking (yellow teeth! eew!) and his disposition is certainly horrible. It's just like Rowling said - he is a deeply horrible person. And if he really gets off on molesting 11 year olds, then he's more pitiful than anything else. He's scary when you're a kid, but later on... He intimidates little kids, and does not see it fit to change any of it as these kids - from year to year - besome younger than he. I understand that this teaching style was maybe necessary when he was 22 and some of the kids 18 (after all, they were the kids who saw his pants!), but not any more. He magnificiently fails to grasp the difference between 35+ and 15+, and that is just... pathetic. Like he's trying to prove to himself that he's not that pathetic, he can still scare a kid or two.. All of this babbling aside, this whole thread creepily reminds me of a story by Woody Allen, in which a guy is mentioned who had a passionate love affair with Molly Bloom until he realized that she was a literary character. SS is just that - a literary character - and I would much rather hear other people's opinions on his portrayal. And he seems to be portrayed in a way to make people wonder about him all the time. He is definitely one of the most interesting characters (and - in terms of pure LITERATURE - a much more convincing and again interesting villain that LV, who, after the revelations of HBP, seems to be bad just because he's... bad. All that stuff about choices, and now it seems that LV is simply the true heir of the Gaunt madness, and there are no choices involved here) in HP. And as for all that black, and swishing, and billowing, and flourishes, not to mention 'I can teach you how to bottle fame...' or 'The dark arts are a many-headed monster...' - does anyone else immediately think of the expression 'drama queen', or is it just me? Lolita, who still sees HP characters as literary characters, and not real people. :) From muellem at bc.edu Sun Sep 4 22:39:52 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 22:39:52 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139544 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > Even if you're right, even if it was wrong to switch books it was > certainly not VERY wrong, and we can tell the difference because we > have seen things that are VERY wrong, like tying a 14 year old boy to > a tombstone and torturing him so badly he wanted to die, or animating > a corpse to kill for you, or making a child carve words into his hand, > or murdering Dumbledore. Right or wrong if I were Harry I am certain I > would feel I had earned that book, I would feel I deserved it. And if > that's the worse thing he does in his life then he's a saint. > > Eggplant I don't believe in the theory that what one does should be measured against what other people have done. LV is an evil dark lord, Umbridge was an evil bitch, and I won't get into Snape's character except to say he is a sadistic, sarcastic bastard. Harry should have his own *moral* compass. Was it cheating to use the book? Obviously, regardless of what you & I think about it, in the WW it certainly seems like cheating - makes you wonder what McGonagall would have said about it if she found out that Harry was using someone elses notes to achieve his sucess without giving the owner proper credit. He never told any authority figure at Hogwarts about it, he only tells Hermoine & Ron about it(no one else), never returned the book when he was given a replacement, he switched books when Snape demanded to see what books he had. Snape calls him a liar & cheat and quite frankly, I do believe he was right - as Harry went out of his way to deceive Snape - and don't start in with the Snape killed DD bit. At this point in the book, that hasn't happened. Harry does not have a knack for foretelling the future. And Snape's actions have nothing to do with Harry's own moral compass. Do I think what Harry did is *normal* for a 16-year old boy? Yes. However, he should have handed the book to Snape when asked. Do I believe Harry knew potion-making better than Hermoine? No. He followed a better set of instructions; instructions that were worked on and rewritten by young Snape - Snape is the one who knew what he was doing and why things worked - not Harry. If Harry had to make a potion on his own, he couldn't do it. Snape at that age probably could have, based on his reworking of the notes in the book. Harry doesn't *deserve* the book - he deserves an education. Which he did not learn a darn thing about potions by using Snape's notes, except how to follow instructions properly this time. Harry has his faults. They are much lesser than those mentioned, but those people are MUCH older than Harry & have a lifetime to achieve those dasterly deeds. Harry is just starting out and I do hope he gets a better grip on his moral compass in book 7. Currently, Harry can do wonderful things, but he is just as capable of doing horrible things as well. He needs to dampen his hatred - Hate breeds Hate and that is one thing LV knows & thrives on. Not to parallel Star Wars or anything, but going down that *dark* path may lose his soul forever. Again, I don't think what Harry did was God-Awful, but it does show a lack of moral fiber. but that is just my 2 knuts colebiancardi (at my HS, if I used someone else's crib sheet and took credit for it, I would have been put into detention) From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sun Sep 4 22:41:11 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 22:41:11 -0000 Subject: Snape's Attack on Flitwick In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139545 > Alla: > > That is a possibility OR if Snape is OFH and have not decided what to > do yet till he checks out the situation on the Tower and figures out > which side is losing in his opinion, then he may want to be alone on > the Tower and does not need anyone else there, who may be able to > fight him. > > JMO of course, > > Alla. Hickengruendler: But in this case, how would Snape explain the situation, if he fought the DE's and stayed in Hogwarts? The moment Flitwick awakes he might have told everybody that Snape stunned him, and in this case Severus would have some explaining to do. And the way Hermione explained what happened, it seems that Flitwick ran into Snape's office to get help, than Hermione and Luna heard fim falling on the ground, and the next moment Snape left the office. That doesn't seem as if he had enough time to do what Tom did with Morfin and somehow transplate fake memories into his head. I just have no ideas at all why Snape stunned Flitwick. No matter on which side he is, his behaviour doesn't make any sense, IMO. And I'm interested in the explanation (hoping that this incident will be explained). From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Sep 4 22:46:02 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 22:46:02 -0000 Subject: Not so bad Snape (was Re: Sexy Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139546 Lolita wrote: > Well, yes, obviously, since it's finally NOT through Harry's eyes that > we see him - you put it correctly, it's neutral narrator on stage. SS > is probably not THAT ugly as Harry describes him - his narration is > coloured by his hatred of Snape. > > Still, SS is no Mr Beautiful. His features aside - beauty is in the > eyes of the beholder - his hygiene is seriously lacking (yellow teeth! > eew!) Potioncat: And his teeth may not be so yellow either...just not Hollywood white. Or if they are, they could be stained, rather than unbrushed. He's never described as having any odor at all, and Harry has been close enough to know. Mungdungus's odors are described, so it isn't just a case of shyness on JKR's part. I do think it's significant that he is described differently in Spinners' End than he is in chapters that include either Harry or the Marauders. As for Rickman...well, yes, he adds something doesn't he? But really, do any of the movie characters match the book characters? From muellem at bc.edu Sun Sep 4 22:59:05 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 22:59:05 -0000 Subject: Not so bad Snape (was Re: Sexy Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139547 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Potioncat: > And his teeth may not be so yellow either...just not Hollywood white. > Or if they are, they could be stained, rather than unbrushed. He's > never described as having any odor at all, and Harry has been close > enough to know. Mungdungus's odors are described, so it isn't just a > case of shyness on JKR's part. > > I do think it's significant that he is described differently in > Spinners' End than he is in chapters that include either Harry or the > Marauders. > well, we do know that that in the pensive scene - which is to be objective - that Snape was still quite unattractive. And the Mauraders also commented on Snape's looks - even grown-up Sirius did. However, I didn't read too much into how Snape was described in Spinner's End - I've seen JKR's original drawing of Snape, and he is just like he is described throughout all the books. Pretty scary looking, in fact. Perhaps at Spinner's End is where Snape had his yearly hairwashing? LOL. I don't think Snape doesn't wash his hair; in fact, I think his hair is, alas, like mine. My hair is very oily and I must wash it daily and put tons of hairproducts in my hair to achieve a balance. If I was inspecting boiling, steaming cauldrons all day long, my hair would probably match the descriptions of Snape's hair. If you have EVER worked in a fast food place and worked the deep fryer section, you know exactly want I mean(I did once, a long time at 16 - I never could get the smell of grease out of my hair that summer). Yellow teeth - Snape is a smoker or a tea-drinker or both (just funning , but the WW does have a few pipe-smokers. Perhaps Snape is one of them). colebiancardi (who does think that Snape is very scary-looking and I wouldn't want to meet him alone in dark alleyway) From lady.indigo at gmail.com Sun Sep 4 22:21:10 2005 From: lady.indigo at gmail.com (lady.indigo at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 18:21:10 -0400 Subject: Academic dishonesty In-Reply-To: References: <63378ee705090412294cecd04b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <63378ee7050904152179e87b30@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139548 On 9/4/05, eggplant107 wrote: >>That's true, it is not proof Hermione doesn't understand why potions work the way they do, but then again, we have never seen one shred of evidence that she does understand why potions work the way they do. The absolute proof,the thing that would end the discussion once and for all would be for Herminie to make one original potion, just one would be enough. But we have not seen that from any student.<< Er, and once again, I say she's demonstrated at least PART of that understanding by quoting a law of Potions that's entirely about theory and what makes the combination of those ingredients in that particular form successful. The law isn't part of a formula or recipe. It's the first hands-on moment we see of applied theory and Hermione gets it, while Harry fails miserably. Yes, Slughorn helped enable this, but I don't care. Still wrong. >>Even Hermione couldn't make the potion successfully following the dumb instructions in the very official Ministry approved completely uncontroversial textbook.<< I don't see how 'controversy' is involved here. Harry's method is controversial only because nobody's ever tested it before. The recipies in the book are tried and proven, apparently without knowing about Snape's alternatives. So for a textbook what else could they be? And I'm missing the part where Hermione actually failed at anything. She made her potion just fine, as did Harry, but Harry's was better. If I'm remembering wrong I'll gladly accept a quote from the canon telling me so. >>> just a weaker form of it or with > some mild side effects. And that differs from lousy because ?? << Because it *did what it was supposed to do.* If the recipe consisted of incorrect instructions which made the potion blow up, or have some opposite effect, that's what I would consider lousy instructions. And in that case it wouldn't be in an approved textbook. Again, some people made perfectly good potions, but Harry's stood out because Snape's notes *supplemented* it. If NEWT-level potions were impossible to learn from that book, we'd have a whole generation of adult wizards who don't know jack about the subject, not to mention clearly intelligent professors like Slughorn (for all his failings in the classroom, he knew how to brew this stuff) who might have worked with even older editions. >>No, not entirely. Putting the blackest possible take on Harry actions, far blacker than I think is justified, I can't come up with a word stronger than "naughty" to descried it, but other members of this group have used words like horrified, repulsed, appalled and disgusted<< Those aren't the words I would use either, but I'd say far more than 'naughty', which to me suggests more a kid in the cookie jar at the age of five or six. Cheating is taken very seriously in schools of all levels, and even one incident of it is grounds for complete failure of the class at my college. Not to mention that Harry does this at least once in a contest-based environment. I don't care if he's 'only 16', which is far too old IMO for anyone to be playing the age card. You learn it in elementary school: don't cheat. Cheating is BAD and WRONG. And if Harry took credit for Snape's findings in the adult world, am I mistaken in saying that he could at the very least be sued? >> I know of the absolute mind numbing hell Harry has gone through over the last 6 years, things that would have turned a normal person like me who was not as intrinsically good as Harry into a monster that would make Hannibal Lector look like Mr. Rodgers.<< The Harry apologists are sounding suspiciously like the Snape apologists again. Not that Snape has been through nearly as much, or that Harry's crimes are anywhere near Snape's magnitude, but just what is the appropriate ratio of personal trauma to completely unrelated moral error, exactly? Can we please call a spade a spade here? Harry did a bad thing and never regretted it, trying to cover it up further and getting upset when he was caught and punished for it. People, including Harry, make mistakes, but I'd like to see the indication that these *are* mistakes be delivered out of a mouth that isn't Snape's. >>> And to answer your question, if I > were Harry I would never have done > it in the first place. Hmmm.<< Are you saying I'm lying then? Because seriously, I thought long and hard. I wouldn't have. And if I really am overestimating myself and I would have, I still would have fessed up immediately. I've done and still do wrong in my life, I've lied about turning in papers late and even snuck a look at a few test papers in middle school (which I felt guilty for afterwards). I don't doubt I would be tempted. But I would *not* have gone on all that time like he did. I do consider it cheating and my conscience wouldn't have allowed it, not to mention (hardly a noble thing, this) my fear of getting caught. - Lady Indigo From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Sun Sep 4 23:28:37 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 19:28:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Not so bad Snape (was Re: Sexy Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050904232837.70183.qmail@web53304.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139549 Potioncat: As for Rickman...well, yes, he adds something doesn't he? But really, do any of the movie characters match the book characters? Luckdragon: Actually both McGonagal and Hermione are exactly as I pictured them. Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! --------------------------------- YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "HPforGrownups" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPforGrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Sun Sep 4 23:57:34 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 19:57:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sexy Snape? In-Reply-To: <20050903191534.68979.qmail@web42102.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050904235734.98478.qmail@unknown-206-190-38-164.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139550 Luckdragon: > I wonder how many people would truly find Snape as attractive had > Alan Rickman not portrayed him in the movies. Alex says: I have thought about that many times. I have almost every movie Alan Rickman has made, and I am thrilled that he played Snape (more Rickman is always good!). But he is quite the polar opposite of the way Snape is described in canon. Nothing remotely hot about HIM. Sexy Snape is definitely movie corruption in my book, then again, bad guys CAN be quite attractive! Luckdragon: I totally agree. Now I love Snape as a character, but sexually, no matter how ingenius, dark and mysterious the Snape of Canon is not sexy in my book. I find it hard to believe that any woman could truly be attracted to such a grungy, emotionally abusive human being without being in need of psychological intervention. I have seen several of Alan Rickman's films, and my preconceived notion of him before Harry Potter has led me to overlook canon in my perception of Snape. In other words I find the Snape from the books to be repugnant, but the Snape of the movies is sexy as hell. Now I know this is JMHO; but I wonder how many people are truly separating Snape from Rickman. Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! --------------------------------- YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "HPforGrownups" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPforGrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 00:00:04 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 00:00:04 -0000 Subject: Not so bad Snape (was Re: Sexy Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139551 I just wanted to add my 2 knuts. Snape isn't good-looking in the usual way, but I think there's something in him that makes his sexy, very sexy. Hooked nose: Since when is it un-sexy? look at Tom Cruise, his nose is far from perfect, yet he's very sexy. Greasy Hair: Could it be that he uses a mouse or gel? I'm thinking of Ross in Friends, his hair looked greasy, but it was just all the hair products he used. He spends most of his day working on potions, with fumes and who knows what else, some of it's got to get into his hair. Or maybe he just have greasy hair and there's nothing he can do about it. Yellow teeth: As someone said earlier, many many things can cause the teeth to get yellowish: coffee, tea, cigarettes, fruits... His body is never described as un-actrative, he doesn't have a huge belly like Slughorn, he's not short, he's not too thin... The way I see it he's got a pretty nice body. His attitude IS sexy, I'm not refering to the way he treats Harry or Neville, no, it's his walk, the way his lips curl, his humor, his dark cloths, his eyes that look deep into you... I think Severus is sexy, I would put him in the same league as Sirius (in the pre-Azkaban era). And I'm not talking about Alan Rickman (although he's also sexy). I see Severus very different from Rickman. Juli From MadameSSnape at aol.com Mon Sep 5 00:07:34 2005 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 20:07:34 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Not so bad Snape (was Re: Sexy Snape?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139552 In a message dated 9/4/2005 8:02:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jlnbtr at yahoo.com writes: His attitude IS sexy, I'm not refering to the way he treats Harry or Neville, no, it's his walk, the way his lips curl, his humor, his dark cloths, his eyes that look deep into you... ========================== Sherrie here: Hmmm....greasy hair, lip-curled expression, "deep-looking" eyes... Sounds like someone else an AWFUL lot of women & young girls found dead sexy..... Fella by the name of Elvis... Sherrie "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 dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 00:14:46 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 00:14:46 -0000 Subject: Snape's Attack on Flitwick In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139553 > > Alla: > > > > That is a possibility OR if Snape is OFH and have not decided what to > > do yet till he checks out the situation on the Tower and figures out > > which side is losing in his opinion, then he may want to be alone on > > the Tower and does not need anyone else there, who may be able to > > fight him. > Hickengruendler: > > But in this case, how would Snape explain the situation, if he fought > the DE's and stayed in Hogwarts? The moment Flitwick awakes he might > have told everybody that Snape stunned him, and in this case Severus > would have some explaining to do. Alla: You know, I have not even thought about Snape implementing fake memories into Flitwick's head. But that could be exactly what he was thinking of doing. Actually, no it does not make much sense, since Snape did not know exactly what was happening on the Tower and according to how I am seeing things did not figure out yet what he was going to do. Hmmm, could it be that he simply obliviated Filius the moment he knocked him out? I think he had enough time for that, no? This way even if he sees that Dumbledore's side is winning at the Tower and he stays at Hogwarts, he avoids Flitwick's questions,when he wakes up, because Charms master simply does not remember anything. You have a good point though - if Snape did not do anything to Filius' memory, it does not make much sense for OFH!Snape, who does not know how the events will turn out, to knock Flitwick out. I will concede this part. The thing is as I stated above, I think Obliviate! was quite likely. So, yeah, I guess I sort of agree with you - taking Flitwick out makes little sense no matter what side Snape on - Good!Snape ( IMO only of course) may need Flitwick help , OFH!Snape should be able to foresee that if he stays, Flitwick will ask questions and simply Evil Snape should have just killed him. Unless of course OFH!Snape Obliviated Charms Master, then it all makes sense to me again for now :-) JMO, Alla From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 00:16:07 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 17:16:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Not so bad Snape (was Re: Sexy Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050905001607.22032.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139554 Sherrie : Hmmm....greasy hair, lip-curled expression, "deep-looking" eyes... Sounds like someone else an AWFUL lot of women & young girls found dead sexy..... Fella by the name of Elvis... Juli again: Even though I don't like Elvis and I don't think he looks at all like Severus, you're right. Just because someone doesn't have the standard "good looks" doesn't mean s/he's not sexy. Juli Aol: jlnbtr Yahoo: jlnbtr __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From muellem at bc.edu Mon Sep 5 00:39:44 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 00:39:44 -0000 Subject: Not so bad Snape (was Re: Sexy Snape?) In-Reply-To: <20050905001607.22032.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139555 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Juli wrote: > > > Sherrie : > > Hmmm....greasy hair, lip-curled expression, "deep-looking" eyes... Sounds > like someone else an AWFUL lot of women & young girls found dead sexy..... > > Fella by the name of Elvis... > > Juli again: Even though I don't like Elvis and I don't think he looks >at all like Severus, you're right. Just because someone doesn't have >the standard "good looks" doesn't mean s/he's not sexy. I think that Snape's nose is a quite a bit more larger than Tom Cruise's, so although I love big noses(re Tom Baker - THE Dr. Who), I do not believe Snape's nose is at all like Cruises. Snape may have deep black eyes, but they are also described as cold and unfeeling, unlike Hagrid's, which are warm and caring. I also believe that Snape's bodyframe is described as extremely thin(either in SS/PS or CoS). I do think that JRK added those descriptions, because they could be taken out of content if she had not. Snape is cold, unfeeling and quite scary-looking(google for her drawings of him - it is very nasty nightmarish stuff). I am a forgiving person when it comes to looks - if the personality is one that overrides the looks. I have loved very handsome men and very *ugly* men - although to me, they weren't ugly, because their personality overrode any quirks in the looks department for me. I have also loved men who were handsome, but that love turned to hatred, as their cruelty towards people made them ugly. It doesn't matter if they treated me well if they treated other people viciously. The problem I have with Snape being Sexy - and don't get me wrong, I adore his character; it is very complex and interesting - is his personality. You can tell a lot about a man(or woman) by the way he treats those that are weaker than they are. Snape's treatment towards children is despictable, IMHO, and I don't think I could ever overlook that - even if he was *dead* sexy. Anyone that gets their kicks from emotional abusing those weaker than themselves has some deep issues with relationships all around. I would view him as a being an *ugly* person because of that. And if he treats children in that manner, how would he treat a woman? And how would he treat his own children, god forbid that he breed. However, I am in the Good!Snape camp. I believe (wishful thinking on my part, I know) that his persona towards those children not in his house is an *act*, to further cement to anyone in the DE's camp that he is still a Death Eater who *hates* anyone who is not a Slytherin. Remember, Dumbledore always thought Voldy would come back, so Snape needed to stay in the dodgy DE character-mode. I could be wrong, of course. Snape may just be a nasty bastard because he just is. fourth post, so I hope the list elves will forgive me.... colebiancardi (Elvis is not my cup o' tea, but HE was very handsome in his youthful days. Pomade(think ducktails) was very popular then and his curling lip was not followed by nasty comments. Plus, he moved his hips alot.) From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 00:41:02 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 17:41:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Not so bad Snape (was Re: Sexy Snape?) In-Reply-To: <20050904232837.70183.qmail@web53304.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050905004102.81491.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139556 > Potioncat: > As for Rickman...well, yes, he adds something doesn't he? But > really, do any of the movie characters match the book characters? I think the producers did a damn fine job casting the HP movies, regardless of what I think of the hack job they did on particular characters (idiot!Ron, ZenaWarriorPrincess!Hermione). The only one I wasn't happy with was Dumbledore, as neither Richard Harris (too old and feeble-seeming) and Michael Gambon (spaced out hippie) fit my conception of the role; however Ian McKellar was already cast as Gandalf or he would have been perfect. My qualms with Rickman are that he's too old and too heavy - on the other hand it gets across the idea of Snape's menace rather well. And not enough can be said about the three actors (Richard cant-remember-his-name, Fiona Shaw and Harry Melling) who play the Dursleys. Can there be three more thankless roles in all of British cinema? I doubt it yet they're superb. And Jason Isaacs is a perfect Lucius Malfoy. Magda (let's hear it for British actors!) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Sep 5 00:49:01 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 00:49:01 -0000 Subject: Snape's Attack on Flitwick In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139557 mhbobbin replies: Valiant attempt, Valky, but Flitwick's battle hardiness (assuming he's weak and that canon deliberately misleads) does not give Snape a legitimate pro-Order anti-Voldemort reason to take Flitwick out unless you are saying Snape knocks Flitwick out of the battle "for his own good". This seems like a stretch. At that point Snape doesn't know --I believe--exactly what's going on or what Draco's mission is. Dumbledore had not called on him--as he had other Order members--to protect Hogwarts that evening. And Draco had not apprised Snape of needing Death Eater assistance that evening. Without knowing the situaion, Snape pre-emptively removes Flitwick from battle. Valky: You know I agree Mhbobbin, it is a stretch, and upon some sleeping on it, I really like it less than ever. mhbobbin Unless Flitwick truly just fainted and it wasn't Snape's fault at all. Christina: Flitwick did seem distressed when he ran into Snape's office (Hermione said that she didn't even think that he noticed she and Luna were there), so maybe he fainted in his panic. Valky: Feeling very much alone, I have to admit I am becomeing increasingly convinced that this is a case of fainting. Mostly because fainting would be *in character* for Flitwick. He is so often seen overbalancing and becoming overwhelmed by things, such as when he meets Harry and titters so much he falls off his chair, when he squeals and is terrified and bursts into tears in COS, and then I can't get the suspicious rumour floating around about him being a duelling champion when its clear that that is the type of reputation Lockhart would be trying to avoid, out of my mind now that I have considered it. That last point is very JKR style humour IMO, I just like it too much to let it go now. So I am ever more considering now that Snape could have been telling the truth, Flitwick might well have summoned all his courage to run and get help from Snape, exhausting himself so that he barely managed the job before fainting. The fact is this really does fit better than Duelling Champion Flitwick, I mean *honestly* if Flitwick is really a duelling champion then whats the point of sending him flying down to the Dungeons to get Snape, why be one brilliant dueller short in battle? MacGonagall had an opportunity to send Ginny Weasley, or Neville Longbottom. Why pick Filius over these two? A Fifth year girl and one of the seemingly softest touches in the whole school, whats wrong with that picture? Alla: And I think we saw that Flitwick knows many very different charms, I speculate that he is a good duelist ( I thought I remembered someone mentioning this fact in the books, but I could be totally wrong, so I won't swear by it) Valky: That was Hermione in COS the Duelling Club chapter, she says someone told her he was a champion, but you might want to read my thoughts on it before considering it canon. :D I can't find who first suggested a memory charm might have been used on Filius by Snape, and who mentioned Filus not seeming to disagree with the contention that he was stunned by Snape, but I'd like to respond to that too. Fainting, is usually proceeded by acute disorientation, so if Flitwick fainted then its likely that he wouldn't have any good coherent memories of the seconds beforehand anyway. IOW he wouldn't really know what happened, so he couldn't very well disagree with the explanation that he was Stupified. JMO of course. Carodave: I remember (don't have my book, sorry) that there was a welt of some kind on Flitwick's forehead, presumably where Snape's curse hit. I don't think he could have just fainted. >Jen: >The only thing countering a fainting incident was Hermione saying >Snape 'Stupefied' Flitwick and she usually knows her spells. Valky: About Stupefy, I have no idea if it leaves a mark. The best source of that canon would be GOF, my copy was lent and is not yet returned so I can't check, the place to look would be when Dumbledore Stupefies Crouch JR, we get a clear interrupted shot of the effects, so if it does leave a mark we'll see it there. In OOtP noone who was hit by Dumbledores hex in his office seemed to show any signs of a physical mark from it, so I am already beginning to believe that Stupefy doesn't leave a mark, and the bruise of Flitwicks head comes from him falling into something. If that's the case, then the bruise is on the front of his head, so he fell forward. If he fell by way of Snape hexing him then Snape hexed him from behind. In relation to Hermione knowing, I am not sure about that either, Hermione is really chastising herself for not taking Harry seriously at the time when she decides for herself it must have been Stupefy. She is not looking at Flitwick, she's looking at a memory definitely coloured by her own sense of guilt. There's no guarantee here that she is being completely objective, though I agree she certainly would be one to count on for an objective viewpoint. Carodave: If Dumbledore thought enough of Flitwick's skill to have him on patrol that night, then I remain Dumbledore's (wo)man enough to trust that Flitwick can carry his own...except when blindsided by someone he thought was an ally. After all, DD could have skipped over Flitwick and had another Order member patrolling, no need to use Flitwick if he's not a strong asset. Valky: I think this is a strong argument against Fainting Flitwick. I agree it seems wrong to have a non fighter patrolling Hogwarts in this time which DD was aware would be dangerous, OTOH I think there is much to be said about what little Flitwick could be capable of in compensation even if he is no dueller. He certainly can get the job done in a crisis, even if he did faint when he got to Snapes office, he got there in the end, he kept his head together long enough to do what was necessary. And then when he did come to, he ran straight to the children of his house to check on them, so again even if he did faint, he acted heroically and did what he thought was right whilever he was concious. There is definite compensation in that. An effective patrol takes all types and a reliable running man is one of these types. If MacGonagall called the group a Guard rather than a Patrol, I know its semantic (sorry), it would certainly leave no doubt that Flitwick is a fighter, but they were a Patrol, not a Guard, so I am not certain he is at all. Valky Still out there on a limb with Flitty Flitwick who can't duel. From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Mon Sep 5 00:57:46 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 00:57:46 -0000 Subject: Snape's penance? (was: Opposite of a Horcrux/Interesting ... In-Reply-To: <193.474389a9.304b8778@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139558 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, MadameSSnape at a... wrote: > > In a message dated 9/3/2005 12:06:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > susiequsie23 at s... writes: > > Now, I actually happen to think (and I have no canon support, I > know!) that it's possible that a "mercy killing" or a killing > commanded by a superior officer in time of war just might not cause > the soul to rip the way that a cold-blooded murder does. > If not ripping the soul, what about tearing the heart? I think this is Snape's penance, that he is put in a position where he has to kill the only real friend he has in the world, even if it is at the friend's request. To me, that explains both his look of "revulsion and hatred" and his fury when Harry calls him a coward. --Gatta From juli17 at aol.com Mon Sep 5 01:57:44 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 21:57:44 EDT Subject: Academic dishonesty. Message-ID: <148.4b603262.304d0018@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139559 Finwich wrote: And I completely agree with Beverly on Slughorn's responsibility. It's even possible he *knew* that book had belonged to Severus'. You know, maybe he even *asked* for it, having *two* E-students coming to need one. I think Ron got to borrow *Slughorn's* old book. Julie says: After I reread this passage in HBP, I found it interesting that Slughorn handed out these two books to Ron and Harry, giving Harry the HBP's old Potions book. I too have wondered if Slughorn could have possibly been aware of the identity of the previous owner of that book, and of the notes contained therein. And if he chose--or was *directed*--to give that particular book to Harry. I also still find Snape's relatively mild reaction to Harry's use of the Sectumsempra somewhat suspicious. Saturday detentions indeed (which Harry says he doesn't deserve--to which I would have said, "Fine, let's add Sundays, too" based on the actual severity of his misdeed, though without Snape's nasty enjoyment of course). Snape is more than happy to punish Harry, and shove his father's punishments for his own misdeeds in Harry's face in the process, but Snape doesn't haul Harry to the headmaster demanding he be expelled--a headmaster who certainly leaves a lot of discipline strictly in the teacher's hands, as there is no indication Snape or Harry even told DD what happened (that I recall, anyway). Why doesn't Snape take it more personally at the time that Harry is cheating (which is what Snape flat out calls it) using his old Potions notes? Perhaps because he knows that Harry learning this information is vital to his eventual defeat of Voldemort? Which brings me back to whether it is important that Slughorn handed out the used books and that Snape was more curious than truly vengeful over Harry's use of his old textbook. I can but wonder if it was only an amazing coincidence that the HBP textbook fell into Harry's hands. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Sep 5 02:09:39 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 02:09:39 -0000 Subject: Not so bad Snape (was Re: Sexy Snape?) In-Reply-To: <20050904232837.70183.qmail@web53304.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139560 > Potioncat: > > > As for Rickman...well, yes, he adds something doesn't he? But really, > do any of the movie characters match the book characters? > > Luckdragon: > > Actually both McGonagal and Hermione are exactly as I pictured them. > Valky: Heavens! You took the words right out of my mouth Brenda! Back into the canon Snape issue, I took the advice of colebiancardi and googled for the JKRowling drawing of Snape, I had seen it before but I definitely needing reminding. He's not pretty that Snape, at all! I compared it with some snapshots of Alan Rickman in Snape costume and I was actually quite impressed with the likeness, Alan does an excellent canon Snape, I have always thought that, but I also agree that as he is a good looking man ordinarily, he can't help softening the shock factor of Snapes looks. Snape IMO is, in canon, intended to have a terrifying appearance without even trying, his description is *freaky*, I think. What, if anything, is "sexy" about him is the air of mystery, which is a more powerful attractive drug than looks are for a great many women IMHO. OTOH warmth and solidarity in a man is equally attractive and more lasting, which is what I think stuns Jo the most when the Snapeophiles show the world their numbers, the kind of attraction that I see exists in Snapes character is not a lasting, comforting thing, except in fantasies where you mend his broken heart and build him up from ground level with affection and comfort. It's really just fantasy, but then so is Snape, so maybe its all in the right place after all. ;D Valky Who can barely believe she had something to add to this conversation, and who thought Jo's drawings of Hagrid and Dumbledore seem to betray that she always had Robbie Coltrane and Richard Harris in mind. From juli17 at aol.com Mon Sep 5 03:02:06 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 23:02:06 EDT Subject: Snape's principles (WAS Re: Snape's Attack on Flitwick) Message-ID: <1de.42e8cd0f.304d0f2e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139561 Christina: ....... Even if it does turn out that Snape has ultimately rejoined the Death Eaters, I don't think he came to that decision until he found Dumbledore on the tower and saw how slim his options had become. I think his actions regarding Flitwick, Hermione, and Luna were those of a double agent in a highly precarious position who needed to be able to mold into whatever role was required for the situation at hand *without interference*. If Flitwick had followed Snape down the hallway and they ran into some Death Eaters, Snape would have been stuck in a pretty tough situation. He would have been forced to turn on either Flitwick or the Death Eaters, costing him his position as a double agent no matter which option he chose or what side he was truly on. I personally think that Snape is still good, but I think his actions in this particular situation don't really support any interpretation. Snape is a double agent. Whether he's working for Dumbledore or Voldemort (or still considering which side to fall on), blowing his cover is the worst thing he can do. Which is why he needed Flitwick (and Hermione and Luna) safely out of his way. Julie says: The key word you use above is "safely." Why would an ESE!Snape, or even an OFH!Snape want Flitwick, Hermoine and Luna SAFELY out of the way? Why not just out of the way, period? And why not out of the way in a more certain manner? Even if ESE/OFH!Snape didn't need/want to kill them, why NOT stun Hermoine and Luna too? That way they *definitely* won't be interfering in his business. It seems odd that throughout this whole Tower/DE Invasion Snape keeps everyone he encounters SAFELY out of his way, doesn't it? (Well, not including Dumbledore, of course). Flitwick, Hermoine, Luna, and most especially, Harry. What does he care if any of them suffer some minor (or if he's ESE, major) pain or damage? Why, oh why, does Snape seems *so* concerned about getting out of Hogwarts without anyone else coming to serious harm, so much so he pressures the DEs to leave before they've had their requisite amount of fun? (And the DEs were winning.) I think it's because he's Dumbledore's man, but I also think it's because Snape, as verbally nasty as he is, has a moral code against harming anyone--especially the children of Hogwarts-- though he can be driven to it by rage (as when Harry called him a coward for killing DD). And even then he keeps it mild. Which leads me to believe that Snape is on the side of Good based on principles, principles that he perhaps adopted late, but did adopt. I think it's also the deepest reason Dumbledore trusts him. Snape is on the side of Good *on principle,* which is the only motivation that is completely trustworthy. And perhaps the only motivation that would convince Dumbledore to allow Snape to teach children, knowing Snape might intimidate them or even hurt their feelings, but won't even harm them or allow anyone else to do so. It's the old "sticks and stones..." bit, which while not completely true, does have validity in the most austere sense--that of survival. And survival is an issue in the WW as long as Voldemort is a threat. What led to Snape's change of principles (and I don't think it was his guilt over revealing the prophecy to Voldemort), that more concrete reason which Dumbledore considered telling Harry but didn't... that we have yet to find out. But I suspect it's coming in book Seven. Julie (who may be blissfully fooling herself about Snape, but does have some canon disparity to support her hopeful ponderings) C [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lealess at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 03:06:13 2005 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 03:06:13 -0000 Subject: Trusting your instincts about Snape WAS: sexy Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139562 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "trouble_h2o" wrote: > From personal experince with abuse during my teen years, Professor > Snape would have been the only teacher at Hogwarts that I might have > told what was going on at home. > > from my life experinces I see a man that can be trusted with > personal secrects and demons and able to act in very difficult > situations. Someone I can respect but not like all the time. > Since everyone is talking about how sexy, or not, Snape is, I just wanted to respond to this post, which has a different slant on him, hoping I am not too off-topic. I had a teacher like Snape in my last year of high school (he only taught seniors - never thought to wonder why until now). He would make incredibly cutting remarks to some students when they tried to get by with minimal effort, enough to me cringe for those students when they were verbally and publicly caught out. He was tough. He expected us to do independent research and use our brains and come up with our own solutions. He was one of the best teachers I've ever had. He taught me how to take responsibility for my own learning, and I remember him with gratitude and respect for that. More pertinent to the above post, he was probably the first of the "good fathers" I ran across in my life. This teacher was honest and intelligent, with tons of integrity, and in a sea of prevaricating adults, someone I felt I could trust. He just didn't tolerate liars or slackers very well. He also had Elephant Man disease, among other maladies, so he wasn't pretty to look at. Actually, he could have been compared to a Frankenstein's monster in appearance. One of my friends and I went to visit him, in trepidation, when he became sick. We went to his home and we met his wife. He never talked about his personal life, of course, never told us he had a wife. She was a lovely person, in every way. And he was more human around her, very warm and gracious, in fact. I am glad I saw that side of him. To bring this back to Harry Potter, I think of my old teacher when I think of Snape. Spinner's End also showed a more gracious side of Snape, if only briefly. Snape was also head of Slytherin. In that capacity, I can imagine him as not coddling, but rather being firm and honest, with his charges. Snape might also have been a good friend to Draco, had Draco not been so stupid about his "glory." So, I think there is more to see in Snape besides sexiness. lealess Sorry if this posts more than once... kept getting an error message. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Sep 5 03:14:04 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 03:14:04 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139563 This debate is gtting so incredibly long. But I m going to add my two knuts anyway, and I'll iron my hands later. > > Valky wrote, in message 139421: > "Harry may have separate notations to the other class members, > however he still must translate those instructions into manual > precision, and accurately manifest the written instructions into > real life potion. Without these things, it is highly unlikely that > any set of instructions would make any difference. If we are still > yet comparing this with a chemistry prac then Harry's skills are > most definitely in credit." > > Del replies: > I would agree with you if we didn't know for sure that, when he > followed the same instructions as the rest of the class, Harry did > not do very well. Valky: Are you talking about in previous years when Snapes personal sabotage of him was a factor, or in the beginning of his first NEWT lesson when he was behind the other students because he had to get the ingredients from the store cupboard and then couldn't read the directions in the book because HBP had crossed them out and written over the top of them? In ether case, the assessment of how well Harry was doing with the instructions everyone else had isn't really a fair one. Del: > That's even the reason he chose to try the HBP's notes: > because he was getting desperate of making the potion turn out OK. Valky: He was depserate because he had started later than everyone else, and he couldn't read the instructions *under* Snapes handwriting, he wasn't desperate because he was having trouble with the potion, except that he found the bean hard to cut. Mind, though, that he was probably using used and worn equipment to do it provided by the school because he didn't have any of his own. He had to borrow Hermione's knife to squash the beans so its likely he didn't have a good knife when he was cutting them so that is not necessarily a lack of skill either. Del: > So we *know* that Harry is not extremely good at following a set of > instructions. If he were, he would have made his potions turn out > quite fine without having to resort to using the HBP's notes. Valky: No I don't think we actually do have proof of that, Del. Sorry :D > > Valky wrote: > it is possible that Harry's potions performance in HBP > is actually representative of what he would always have been > capable of with Snape lessons but no actual > Snape in the room sabotaging him every few minutes. > > Del replies: > It's a strong possibility. But it doesn't change the fact that Harry > didn't deserve all the praise he got from Slughorn, and that he was > competing unfairly against his classmates and knew it very well. Valky: I agree, after the first lesson tht he knew he was competing unfairly. But he didn't know this the first lesson, he used the HBP's notes out of desperation because he had no other way to make the potion at all in time, a new book would mean he was starting from scratch again, so he just took a gamble and it paid off. He didn't really deserve the praise from Slughorn either, I agree, but Harry was never one to take praise to heart even if he did deserve it. I think Harry is generally so modest and is used to just letting people praise him because they want to, even though he doesn't feel like he deserves it. It could be just another case of that. > Valky previously: > The > fact is Harry is a highly skilled potions maker, Snapes notations > did not control his hands his eyes and his ability to discern the > stage of the potion using his own senses. Those things he did > himself. zgirnius: I agree entirely about Harry's skills/accuracy in Potions making, they are good. This is why he got an E in the subject on his OWL, IMO. Valky now: Yay, thankyou zgirnius, and I have to credit pheonixgod too, who actually did post a comment on this before I did too, so I also agree with Pheonixgod. zgirnius: The whole "cheating" argument, though, is that since he had better instructions, he could achieve better results than other students who are even *more* accurate/skilled, but were following less useful instructions. (Note Hermione was doing better than Harry in the first class, until Harry switched to the HBP's instructions, for example.) Valky: Yes I agree that he could achieve better results through the HBP's work, but I still don't think it is essentially cheating in terms of a prac lesson, I agree that the praise for Harrys work was too high, they weren't his innovations, but I disagree with the contention of others that he didnt learn anything about theory from the lessons, I in fact think he learned more. I digress.. sorry back to zgirnius. Something I find uncanny about the cheating debate, is that there are some who think Harry was cheating, but would also say conversely on another thread that Harry is not doing enough to learn everything he can. I find one contradicts the other. The reason I don't think Harry is cheating is because I think he completely lacks intent, I don't think he hides the HBP's book out of guilt, he hides it, I think, because its a resource that might be lost if he didn't. He is looking at it the same way he looked at his ability to see into LV's mind in OOtP. It's not about High marks or competing with classmates for Harry at all. The HBP knew things that *Slughorn* couldn't teach his class about Potions, it's *valuable* in Harry's most imprtant goal, arming himself *uniquely* against Voldemort. That is why he keeps it, and that is why he hides it, he doesn't want it taken away, in case somewhere deeper inside it is something he can use in his real life. If he really cared essentially about marks and praise, then he could have gotten loads of it at the Sug Club he so desperately tried to avoid. What I am trying to say is, Harry never cheated because he never wanted to cheat, he just wants to get good at fighting Voldemort and he kind of goes his own way about it. Valky From dossett at lds.net Mon Sep 5 00:59:26 2005 From: dossett at lds.net (rtbthw_mom) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 00:59:26 -0000 Subject: Snape's worst memory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139564 lupinlore said: "...it is easier to imagine a healthier and happier Severus Snape, still sarcastic and cynical, but without the cruel edge, growing very fond of a certain brash, energetic, dark-haired Gryffindor, and said Gryffindor finding that his favorite professor is not a passive, emotionally repressed werewolf but his dry-witted, irreverent potions master. Perhaps Dumbledore hoped that Occlumency would, among other things, allow some dim shadow of that better world to be salvaged. But the deep tragedy is that the better world is only a dream - a dream that was rendered impossible years ago by prejudice, blunders, hatred, and death." rtbthw_mom now: I think it's overwhelmingly sad that Snape didn't have the decency to identify with Harry when he saw all the sad memories in Harry's mind during the Occlumency sessions. Perhaps this is what Dumbledore hoped would happen: Snape would, once and for all, realize that Harry really wasn't the spoiled brat that Snape always characterized James as being. Harry had the same sort of childhood that it seems Severus had, and there should at least be some sympathy there between the two of them, just has Harry felt when he viewed Snape's "worst memory." Thanks for listening! From vmonte at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 05:03:32 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 05:03:32 -0000 Subject: Sexy Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139566 >Elsye wrote: Whoa!!! How did we end up with abused children here? I know Snape is nasty, mean , savagely sadistic, but he is hardly comparable to a child abuser! This is quite an unfair leap youre taking here IMO and its not as if shes writing the books with abused children in mind. Also I think that what JKR wants to show children is that just because people are ugly and mean doesnt mean they do not possess other worthy redeeming qualities I think Julie summed it up very well when she wrote: Another life lesson children learn when they mature into adults is that there is more to a person than what is apparent on the surface, and that there are often reasons behind a person's behavior. Knowing why someone acts in a certain way (he was abused, experienced a trauma, etc) does not excuse that person's bad behavior, but it does allow one to understand and even empathize. (Harry finding out that his father and Sirius did on at least one occasion bully Snape is an example). vmonte responds: Ok, then tell me what those redeeming qualities are? What are they? The above quote tells me nothing about Snape's redeeming qualities. >vmonte: Children really do know what this kind of teacher is all about. It's the adults that are clueless. >Elyse: Come now, adults are more capable than you give them credit for surely? Not meaning to be sarcastic here, but in that case we might as well turn the world government into primary schoolers' hands and see the results... vmonte : Ok, don't take my word for it. "What about Snape? JKR: Snape is a very sadistic teacher, loosely based on a teacher I myself had, I have to say. I think children are very aware and we are kidding ourselves if we don't think that they are, that teachers do sometimes abuse their power and this particular teacher does abuse his power. He's not a particularly pleasant person at all..." http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/1999/1099- connectiontransc.html vmonte: Sadistic, abuses power, children are aware Stephen Fry: Yes, and even in the books there is a certain flair. Most characters like Snape are hard to love but there is a sort of ambiguity ? you can't quite decide - something sad about him ? lonely and it's fascinating when you think he's going to be the evil one a party from Voldemort obviously in the first book then slowly you get this idea he's not so bad after all. JK Rowling: Yes but you shouldn't think him too nice. It is worth keeping an eye on old Severus definitely! http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2003/0626-alberthall-fry.htm vmonte: Yeah he's interesting alright, but not nice. One of our internet correspondents wondered if Snape is going to fall in love. JKR: (JKR laughs) Who on earth would want Snape in love with them? That's a very horrible idea... http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/1999/1099- connectiontransc.html vmonte: No one would/should want Snape to be in love with them because it would be a horrible idea. JKR: "...I had an interesting discussion, I thought, with my editor Emma, about Draco. She said to me, "So, Malfoy can do Occlumency," which obviously Harry never mastered and has now pretty much given up on doing, or attempting. And she was querying this and wondering whether he should be as good as it, but I think Draco would be very gifted in Occlumency, unlike Harry. Harry's problem with it was always that his emotions were too near the surface and that he is in some ways too damaged. But he's also very in touch with his feelings about what's happened to him. He's not repressed, he's quite honest about facing them, and he couldn't suppress them, he couldn't suppress these memories. 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? So he suppresses virtually all of the good side of himself." (MN/TLC 2, pp16-17) vmonte: Harry is damaged but in touch with his feelings--he's an honest person. Being gifted in Occlumency seems to be a gift for the worst kinds of people--the people that can become Death Eaters. Vivian From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 5 06:03:21 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 06:03:21 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139567 "colebiancardi" wrote: > I don't believe in the theory that > what one does should be measured > against what other people have done. That may be the root of our disagreement because I do believe in that theory, I think it is how to tell good people from bad people. > he [Harry] should have handed the > book to Snape when asked. I would not have done that. I know of no one would have done that. I can think of no reason to respect Snape's demand to the slightest extent. > He never told any authority figure > at Hogwarts about it To my mind by book 6 Harry Potter is an authority figure, an authority figure superior to any other now that Dumbledore has been murdered. > Snape calls him [Harry] a liar & cheat If a murderer does not approve of my actions I would consider that a high complement. > If Harry had to make a potion on > his own, he couldn't do it. Nor could any other student, even Hermione. > Harry is just starting out And some part of Harry's mind must realize he's most likely just about to end and he will never be an old man. > He [Harry] needs to dampen his hatred That is the conventional wisdom, it's very very politically correct and even JKR may agree, but I do not. I think that in the proper time and place hatred is as valid and useful an emotion as any other. Eggplant From juli17 at aol.com Mon Sep 5 06:26:22 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 02:26:22 EDT Subject: Snape's Attack on Flitwick Message-ID: <1c9.30351fe6.304d3f0e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139568 Valky wrote: So I am ever more considering now that Snape could have been telling the truth, Flitwick might well have summoned all his courage to run and get help from Snape, exhausting himself so that he barely managed the job before fainting. The fact is this really does fit better than Duelling Champion Flitwick, I mean *honestly* if Flitwick is really a duelling champion then whats the point of sending him flying down to the Dungeons to get Snape, why be one brilliant dueller short in battle? MacGonagall had an opportunity to send Ginny Weasley, or Neville Longbottom. Why pick Filius over these two? A Fifth year girl and one of the seemingly softest touches in the whole school, whats wrong with that picture? Julie says: I think it's possible that Snape was telling the truth. But even if he wasn't, why would DD'sMan!Snape want Flitwick to come with him, which is exactly what Flitwick would do? Snape knows he has to walk a very fine line, convincing the DEs he's on their side, while not actually hurting any of the students or Order members. And he may know or suspect the task he is about to face--delivering the killing blow to Dumbledore. While he's doing this balancing act, and trying to keep his own butt out of a sling in the process (as well as Draco's), how's he supposed to keep Flitwick under control (i.e., keep Flitwick from interfering with his task, while not seriously hurting Flitwick which the DEs would no doubt expect)? The easy answer is to stun Flitwick and keep him out of the way instead of having one more complication in the mix. Which is why, IMO, stunning Flitwick indicates DDsMan!Snape more to me than ESE!Snape (who would have *at the very least* stunned Hermoine and Luna too, I would think). Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From samwisep at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 06:51:03 2005 From: samwisep at yahoo.com (Samantha) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 06:51:03 -0000 Subject: Sexy Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139569 ("I do think that JRK added those descriptions, because they could be taken out of content if she had not. Snape is cold, unfeeling and quite scary-looking(google for her drawings of him - it is very nasty nightmarish stuff"). I know this is off topic, but I am being driven crazy. Am I the ONLY one that is not able to find the drawings jkr made of Snape? I tried to Google with no luck. Also, I must add that while I find Snape's character interesting, I don't find him sexy.( I like nerds better!) But I do agree that Harry's POV might be coloring how he sees Snape. Snapeo'phile From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 5 06:57:15 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 06:57:15 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty. In-Reply-To: <63378ee7050904152179e87b30@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139570 wrote: > The Harry apologists are sounding > suspiciously like the Snape apologists Yes, the only difference is that Harry didn't report there was graphite in his book and Snape murdered Dumbledore. > The recipies in the book > are tried and proven Proven not to work apparently. > just what is the appropriate ratio > of personal trauma to completely > unrelated moral error, exactly? 9.47819 > Can we please call a spade a spade here? > Harry did a bad thing and never regretted it If I thought Harry did a bad thing I would not hesitate for one millisecond to say so, but if I had done what Harry did and if I lived to be 99 I would not regret it. > incorrect instructions which made > the potion blow up, or have some > opposite effect, that's what I > would consider lousy instructions. > And in that case it wouldn't be > in an approved textbook. Please understand I mean no insult, you're a Harry Potter fan just like me so you must be a good person, but I must say the above sounds just a little like something Umbridge would say. Eggplant From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Mon Sep 5 09:18:46 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 09:18:46 -0000 Subject: Snape's Attack on Flitwick In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139571 Alla: > > Hmmm, could it be that he simply obliviated Filius the moment he > knocked him out? > Hickengruendler: Yes, I thought about this as well. What put me a bit off this theory, was, that we saw victims of the Obliviate spell two times in Canon "onpage" (Mr Rogers and Marietta Edgecombe), and both reacted much differently from Flitwick. Mr Rogers's memory was completely disturbed for some time (though that might have been, because several charms were used on him in a pretty short timespan) and Marietta just stared into nothing with a blank expression, that wasn't mentioned by Flitwick. That doesn't really the Obliviate theory totally out, we really don't know if the two examples mentioned above were some very special cases, but I don't think there are much similarities to Flitwick's behaviour after he woke up. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 09:40:42 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 09:40:42 -0000 Subject: Snape's Attack on Flitwick In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139572 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > mhbobbin: > > Although I lean to believing that Snape killed Dumbledore on > > Dumbledore's orders, and that Snape isn't really working for > > Voldemort, I am most troubled by my inability to reconcile Snape's > > attack on Flitwick with this theory. > > Valky: > I too find it difficult to reconcile, I generally have ignored it up > till now, but I guess we should bite it and have a look sometime > hey? :D > bboyminn: I see the thread has run on quite long, but no one seems to have addressed this basic question head-on. I think Snape took Flitwick out of the game, by whatever means, because once he discovered there were Death Eaters in the castle, he knew he was in a very awkward situation. If he intended to fight the DE's without seeming to do so, he had to act alone. He couldn't have Flitwick tagging along behind him. This was a situation that require great stealth as well as great finesse. He had to either covertly fight the DE's, or he had to get them under control and get them out of the castle without compromising his position with either Voldemort or Dumbledore. So, again, he couldn't have Flitwich tagging along behind him. I really think it is as simple as that. Certainly, at that moment, his concern was for maintaining his cover, getting Draco out of trouble, and getting the DE's out of the castle. At that time, I don't think he knew what was in store for him when he met Dumbledore at the top of the tower. That was a spontaneous event. It's already clear to everyone that I don't think Snape and Dumbledore conspired in advance toward Dumbledore's death. Instead, I think, in a manner of speaking, they conspired on the spot, and Dumbledore make Snape aware that all was lost, and Snape took the opportunity to turn a bad situation to his advantage. Don't get the idea that I am completely excusing Snape. Even under the best possible outcome and the best possible circumstances, Snape killed Dumbledore, and he will have to pay some price for that. Although, I don't forsee that price being 'murder'. I see it more as manslaughter, though it may not be legally right, my point is that Snape will pay for his crime because there is no way to erase it. But I also think, that Snape will explain it away to the point where he won't be charge with the cold-blooded murder that it appears to be. I think that was the foundation behind Snape chastising Harry for calling him a Coward. Snape did a very brave thing, at least in his eyes, in killing Dumbledore. He did what must be done to bring about Voldemort's ultimate defeat at some point in the indeterminate future. But to accomplish that future task, he has to do a terrible thing for which he can never escape punishment. His courage wasn't in killing Dumbledore. It was in being willing to commit a terrible crime, and in doing so, accept the punishment, knowing that his personal sacrifice would bring about an ultimate greater good. In a sense, Snape, and by his eventual punishment, is a casualty of war. Again, I'm not really defending Snape or saying he should be forgiven, but if we take the position that Dumbledore was already dying, and Snape simply worked that death to his advantage, then while we can never forgive him stealing one second of Dumbledore's life, we can at least understand the sacrifice they both made. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Mon Sep 5 09:57:29 2005 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 05:57:29 -0400 Subject: Evil Slytherin Message-ID: <005601c5b200$3acc0340$32c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 139573 >Juli: Why is the S (as in Slytherine) an evil brand???? /Fabian >>Oh come on, all evil wizards have come out of one house? In our muggle-world I don't think this would be allowed to pass, and that house would have been reformed or just removed. CathyD: I think you are forgetting our friend Peter Pettigrew who was a Gryffindor. Yes, Hagrid says "There's not a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin" but PP certainly proves that wrong. . At least for a time, Sirius Black, former Gryffindor, was considered to have 'gone bad' although we know that is not the case. I'm sure there are others we don't know about yet. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catlady at wicca.net Mon Sep 5 11:07:58 2005 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 11:07:58 -0000 Subject: Sexy Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139574 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Samantha" wrote: > I know this is off topic, but I am being driven crazy. Am I the ONLY > one that is not able to find the drawings jkr made of Snape? I tried > to Google with no luck. They're in the Photos section of our Y!Group: http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/lst in a folder named "Harry Potter and Me": http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/hpforgrownups/lst?.dir=/Harry+Potter+%26+Me&.src=gr&.order=&.view=t&.done=http%3a//briefcase.yahoo.com/ From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 11:19:10 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 11:19:10 -0000 Subject: Hermione and the HBP (was Academic dishonesty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139575 Del: > As for how this mistrust can be reconciled with her character, I guess > we are supposed to believe that she lost control of her jealousy in > HBP. She acted stupidly and even meanly towards Ron because of > romantic jealousy, and I think we are supposed to believe that she > acted stupidly towards the HBP because of intellectual jealousy. She > wouldn't study the HBP's notes because she went on a sort of > competition with the HBP, through Harry. She tried to prove that she > was a better potion-maker than the HBP. That's the only way I can > explain to myself that Hermione would let such a mine as the HBP book > sit under her nose without studying it. Finwitch: You know, there's something else as well: Hermione is *of age* by wizarding standards nearly all year. That - as well as being a NEWT student is new to her - so she does as she did in PS where the whole WW was new to her. She stucks to the rules because she's feeling insecure. When something she cannot learn from books comes up, she rejects it as "unreliable" or "unworthy" - just as she does with Trelawney and Divination. And now she does it with someone's NOTES showing a bit of creativity. As for the bezoar-incident - Hermione considered it a cheat - even assuming Harry had NOT got it from the book-notes. Why? Because it's not rule-based, it's not the expected way, it's out-of-the book- way. You know - I'd say that picking a bezoar for a multiple antidote... well, if someone's poisoned, you don't usually have much time to brew the antidote, so a bezoar is both practical and effective. Anyway, Hermione has that need to be right about something. When they found out whose book it was - she insists she was partially right as the Prince she found was Snape's mother. Or about that Firebolt being sent by Sirius Black... Interesting though: Ron comes of age, is happy for a moment and then he's under the Love Potion-effect AND poisoned. Wonder what will happen when HARRY comes of age? Death Eaters attacking Privet Drive? Hopefully Harry takes some Felix Felicis on his 17th birthday, because he'll need it. Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 11:35:30 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 11:35:30 -0000 Subject: Recursion: See Recursion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139576 Gatta: > Here's a poser for you: In the Muggleverse that runs alongside the > Wizarding World in the Harry Potter books, do J.K. Rowling and the > Harry Potter books exist? And if so: > > (1) Does the existence of the books in the (fictional?) Muggleverse > generate another level of WW and MV, in which the books exist and > generate...and so ad infinitum? (Inspired by staring fixedly at the > Land of Lakes butter package while the coffee water heated.) Finwitch: Nah - it'd be - as they ARE published later than Harry's adventures -- maybe, like the Quibbler, a form to publish things about Harry? Say Harry met J.K. Rowling on a train and told her the whole story. > (2) How does the Wizarding World feel about being "outed" in so > cavalier a fashion? Do they figure the Muggles think it's just fiction > and this too shall pass, or is there a delegation from the MoM on its > way to rearrange Ms. Rowling's memory? Finwitch: Well, they'd probably figure that Muggles will think it's fiction. Or maybe they did wipe her, which explains her writer's block, but Harry paid her a second visit... how would we know? > (3) For that matter, is there a WW that runs along side *this* > Muggleverse? And how does *it* feel about being "outed" in so cavalier > a fashion... Finwitch: Well, if what I speculated above goes on, well... Besides, maybe it *would* be time for wizards to reunite Muggle Society. The Ministry wouldn't like it, of course - as the Ministry *exists* to hide Wizardkind from Muggles... Finwitch From catlady at wicca.net Mon Sep 5 11:50:53 2005 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 11:50:53 -0000 Subject: numerous short replies, not all of them smart-ass Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139577 Pippin wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/138999 : << Jo has already said that Harry can't learn [Occlumency] -- he's too damaged. >> I thought Jo said that Harry can't learn Occlumency because he isn't damaged enough. (I'm not going into detail because so many posters have already done so.) zgirnius wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139012 : << Bella, eat your heart out! The woman is Gryffindoresque in her loyalty to Voldemort... >> Hufflepuffesque? Amiable Dorsai wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139022 : << Hermione seems to have some knowledge of latin, in PoA, she apparently coined "Mobliarbus" to move a christmas tree. >> I recall that some listie suggested years ago that Hermione had learned this spell from a History book because it had become famous as the spell that moved Burnham Wood to Dunsinane. Lady Indigo wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139123 : << tbernhard2000: Snape found refuge at Hogwarts too. Lady Indigo: When? >> As a grown man who turned against the Dark Lord. Pippin wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139130 : << Isn't it telling that Voldemort used Harry's feelings for Sirius, not [Cho Chang]? >> IIRC Harry no longer had any special feelings for Cho by the time LV was setting up the trap. So LV wouldn't have used Cho as bait even if he had been getting his info straight from Harry's mind. Vivian wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139183 : << We know that Snape has used Legimency on people before-- Fake!Moody on the stairs, >> This confuses me. How could Snape have used Legilimency on Fake!Moody without noticing that he was fake? Surely one's self-identity is present in one's mind all one's waking time, like a background noise? Pippin wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139222 : << But an apology that wasn't asked for I think would have shocked Snape and might have made him question his assessment that Harry is arrogant. >> I expect that Snape would have assumed that any apology volunteered by Harry was some kind of deliberate insult to Snape. Ms*Bead*sley wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139237 : << So how DID he get the name Snivellus; >> IIRC Valky theorized that it was because he tattled to the grown-ups, somehow connected to avoiding punishment for his own misdeeds. Valky wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139252 : << Day 1 Voldemort attacks GH Day 2 Sirius is put in Azkaban and Harry is put in Privet Drive Day 3 or 4 The Longbottoms are attacked and tortured by the Lestranges. >> GoF, chapter 27, "Padfoot Returns": 'Sirius smiled grimly. "Crouch's own son was caught with a group of Death Eaters who'd managed to talk their way out of Azkaban. Apparently they were trying to find Voldemort and return him to power."' I don't think Day 3 or 4 is long enough for the Lestranges to have been arrested and talked their way out of Azkaban. Jamie wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139285 : << Plus, remember what JKR said about the POA movie foreshadowing things from the final two books? Perhaps she shuddered slightly at the scene where Sirius tells Harry that his parents live on inside him. >> In the book PoA, it is Dumbledore's line: "You think the dead we loved ever truly leave us? You think that we don't recall them more clearly than ever in times of great trouble? Your father is alive in you, Harry, and shows himself most plainly when you have need of him. How else could you produce that particular Patronus? Prongs rode again last night." Lady Indigo wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139309 : << I can't fathom how someone, even at the age of 16, even in a world with advanced healing, could ever see something labelled 'for enemies' and have their first urge be to use it and see what it does. >> It kept seeming to me as if that book seduced Harry, kind of like The 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. Luckdragon wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139426 : << I wonder how many people would truly find Snape as attractive had Alan Rickman not portrayed him in the movies. >> *sigh* I feel like I am constantly repeating that there were women (on the predecessor of this list, and elsewhere) who doted on Severus Snape *before the movie rights had even been sold*. His speech about the subtle beauty of the softly simmering cauldron had more to do with it than Alan Rickman's innate sexiness. Vivian wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139475 : << So far JKR has only shown DEs (and former DEs) kill. She hasn't shown any Order members killing yet?not even in self-defense. >> That depends on how precise is the word 'shown'. In the Pensieve scene of Karkaroff's hearing in GoF: "Any others?" said Crouch coldly. "Why, yes there was Rosier," said Karkaroff hurriedly. "Evan Rosier." "Rosier is dead," said Crouch. "He was caught shortly after you were, too. He preferred to fight rather than coming quietly, and was killed in the struggle." "Took a bit of me with him, though," whispered Moody to Harry's right. Harry looked around at him once more, and saw him indicating the large chunk out of his nose to Dumbledore. From vmonte at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 12:29:11 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 12:29:11 -0000 Subject: Malice and Ulterior Motives - Snape is Sexy? Nice? No Way! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139578 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/138754 I wrote: In my opinion Severus Snape is a bad man. Many say that now he is not bad, but is a double agent. The interesting thing about double agents is that you never really know whose side they are truly on; or even more importantly if they are on any one side at all, preferring to use what they can from both sides until ultimately both sides cancel each other out leaving the double-double-crosser as the true victor. Throughout the novel Snape is repeatedly described as having bat-like and spider-like qualities. Bats are bloodsuckers, and arachnids spin webs to entrap their prey, once caught they are sucked dry of their innards until only a husk remains. These are the perfect descriptions for a man who has laid out webs of deceit all around him and uses those that he ensnares to achieve his goals. colebiancardi responded: Bats are NOT bloodsuckers - only the vampire bat is. Most bats are insect eating creatures and they help cut down on the *bad* insects, such as flies & mosquitoes. Spiders are also in the same vein as bats - they catch their prey(insects) and help cut down on the increasing population of said insects. Matter of fact, there is folklore that states it is bad luck to kill a spider. I never kill a spider in my home - I just gently pick it up with paper and put it outside where it belongs. Yes, those descriptions are used to describe Snape - but if you look at it away from the incorrect misconceptions of bats & spiders, well, you could say he isn't evil, but helping out by ridding the WW of insects (DE's). (who thinks that bats are very cute & will not kill a spider) vmonte responds: He's helping to cut down on the "bad" insects? Do you really believe that a writer would compare Snape to a spider and a bat because she/he wanted people to see that the character was a good person? Aren't there better descriptors available for that? The rest of this is not a comment on your post, but just my general thoughts about Snape. Here is the problem I have with the idea that Snape is not a person that's full of malice. If JKR had described Snape as being a big teddy bear I would assume that JKR meant that he was cute and snuggly, and not that he was literally a stuffed animal. When a writer (correct me if I'm wrong) writes that a person is spider-like and bat-like, the images I should get are of someone that has similar characteristics, not of someone that's an actual spider or a bat/vampire. JKR didn't make Snape a vampire because she wants him to be culpable for his lousy, improper, and injurious behavior. Lupin is not culpable for his actions when he is a werewolf because what he has, in effect, is an illness. (Fenrir is different because he intentionally positions himself near his victims to assure that they get attacked. JKR even adds that Fenrir's taste for blood has crossed over into his regular human life as well. She wants to make it perfectly clear to her readers what Fenrir's motives are.) JKR then inserts into the HBP a real vampire (was his name Sanguini?). Anyway, she goes on to show this "real" vampire as almost cartoon- like. If Sanguini were to have lost control at Slughorn's party and attacked some kid you could say: "Well, you know, the poor guy was just doing what a Vampire does. He couldn't help it, it's in a vampire's nature." JKR does not want her fans to see Snape this way. She wants to make it very clear that this person is culpable for his actions and that he is choosing to behave the way that he does because he has made a conscience decision. Vivian From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Sep 5 12:38:39 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 12:38:39 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139579 Eggplant: > Even if you're right, even if it was wrong to switch books it was > certainly not VERY wrong, and we can tell the difference because we > have seen things that are VERY wrong, like tying a 14 year old boy to > a tombstone and torturing him so badly he wanted to die, or animating > a corpse to kill for you, or making a child carve words into his hand, > or murdering Dumbledore. Right or wrong if I were Harry I am certain I > would feel I had earned that book, I would feel I deserved it. And if > that's the worse thing he does in his life then he's a saint. Ceridwen: That is moral relativism. You and I are apparently not on the same philosophical page. It suggests that, so long as Harry doesn't tie a teen-ager to a gravestone and torture him, create an Inferius, use Umbridge's pen on some poor soul, or murder someone, he can do whatever he pleases and he will get a pass from you because someone else did something worse. But if a young person isn't punished for, and realize the error of, smaller mistakes and wrongs, then he'll be much more likely to grow up to torture, maim and kill. Between the two of us, you're the only one who is comparing what Harry does to what others do and have done. I'm not talking about Voldemort, Umbridge or Snape. Forget about them. I'm talking about Harry. Period. What others do, in RL or in the books, has no bearing on what I'm saying about Harry. And, it seems that your relativism only extends to Harry. Snape 'only' tormented children verbally in the classroom. Voldemort killed Harry's parents. Give Snape a pass. Umbridge 'only' used a sadistic means to discipline her charges. Voldemort killed his own father and grandparents and framed his uncle for the murder. Give Umbridge a pass. And, until nearly the end of the book, no one killed Dumbledore. So the excuse of 'well, he defied the guy who killed Dumbledore' has no meaning. Dumbledore wasn't dead when Harry used Sectumsempra and nearly killed Draco Malfoy. However, Harry nearly killed at that point while Snape was, by comparison, lily-white. He saved Draco, and extended mercy to Harry by not having him expelled. Which he surely would have been if Snape had chosen to press the issue that Harry was a) using Dark Magic and b) trying to murder fellow students. And, Dumbledore was alive, though not too well (the hand, a result of Voldemort, his even being alive thanks to Snape) when Harry used, and neglected to return, the HBP book. We aren't discussing Trelawney the Seeress. We're discussing Harry, who sucked in Divination. He didn't know, any more than we readers did, that Snape was going to kill Dumbledore. Harry shouldn't choose an action, good or bad, based on what other people will, did, or might do. That's part of growing up as well. 'Yeah, but he...' wouldn't stand up in a court of law, nor in a mother's court. The *only* way that Harry could be excused is based on what *Petunia* did, or in this case didn't, do - teach Harry properly. And then, he has gone to school in the Muggle world, and was in his sixth year at Hogwarts, so he was not wholly ignorant of proper behavior. You and I disagree. You say that others have done worse so Harry should get a pass, and besides, you would do the same thing. I would too, now. When I was that age, I would have followed the rules, since after all, God sees and knows even if others don't. No matter, we're discussing Harry and proper behavior, not what you or I would have done. Ceridwen. From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Mon Sep 5 13:09:47 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 13:09:47 -0000 Subject: Not so bad Snape (was Re: Sexy Snape?) In-Reply-To: <20050904232837.70183.qmail@web53304.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139580 > > Luckdragon: > > Actually both McGonagal and Hermione are exactly as I pictured them. > I too thought they were "spot on", especially McGonagall. And Dumbledore is pretty close (the Richard Harris Dumbledore, that is; can't speak for his replacement; I'm technologically challenged when it comes to DVD players, so haven't seen PoA yet). As for canonical Snape: As a teen, he comes across as one of those creepy kids who in this universe would be running around in Doc Martins and a safety pin through his lip and trying to figure how he can borrow his dad's power rifle to blow the school away. As an adult, he reminds me of those creepy Jesuits in nineteenth-century Gothics, lurking in corridors and plotting to poison the hero and chain the heroine to the ceiling for the good of her soul. I love the movie Snape, but I have trouble connecting him to the canonical version. (Odd, didn't JKR hand-pick Alan Rickman for the part and give him lots of sub-rosa information about Snape that hasn't appeared in the books yet? I seem to remember reading something like that in one of her interviews.) --Gatta From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Sep 5 10:08:51 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 10:08:51 -0000 Subject: Morality, Simplicity, and JKR's Intent (was Re: Academic dishonesty) In-Reply-To: <63378ee7050904152179e87b30@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139581 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > The Harry apologists are sounding suspiciously like the Snape apologists > again. Not that Snape has been through nearly as much, or that Harry's > crimes are anywhere near Snape's magnitude, but just what is the appropriate > ratio of personal trauma to completely unrelated moral error, exactly? > Can we please call a spade a spade here? Harry did a bad thing and never > regretted it, trying to cover it up further and getting upset when he was > caught and punished for it. People, including Harry, make mistakes, but I'd > like to see the indication that these *are* mistakes be delivered out of a > mouth that isn't Snape's. > First of all, they have been delivered out of a mouth that isn't Snape's. Hermione certainly was upset over the HBP book. However, much of the potential impact of her disapproval is mitigated in many (most?) people's minds by the strong suspicion that it is largely motivated by jealousy, and also by the fact that so much of it is obviously played for laughs. So, in fairness, I don't think that really answers your objections. Perhaps in the next book you will get your wish - if not on the specific issue of the potions book then with regard to other of Harry's actions and attitudes. I wouldn't be shocked if that turns out to be the case -- although I also wouldn't bet on it. I wonder what JKR would say about the issues of Harry's morality or lack thereof that so exercise us? If we were able to directly approach her about her intent, what kind of answer would we get? One can only guess, of course. But judging by some of her interviews, if we were to approach her over, for instance, whether there is something questionable about Harry using the HBP book to get good grades, she MIGHT well say something to the effect, "Sure, but this is a heroic fantasy for kids, not a treatise on moral philosophy. I want to write a story about a hero that people can identify with, and let's be honest, most of us would have a hard time doing anything differently than Harry in that situation. I don't see Harry as a role-model for somebody who wants to be a good student -- Hermione sets a much better example. But, if I had to depend on somebody to captain a sports team, rescue a hostage, or save the world, I would choose Harry over Hermione every time." Now, I don't mean that as a defense per se of JKR, as for all her great skill as a writer she also has some major weaknesses. I tend to agree that she is sometimes blind to the moral messages that she unintentionally sends. I think that much of the reason so many themes and storylines from OOTP were dropped like a red-hot poker is that she was blindsided when people objected to certain messages that she did not intend to send. I also think that Hermione is JKR's avatar in more ways than one. Just as Hermione is slavishly devoted to the formulas in her potions book, JKR is sometimes slavishly devoted to certain fiction formulas -- for instance in her shipping themes and the fact that Sirius Black died for seemingly no other reason than to fulfill the tired and uninteresting trope that Harry meet his fate alone. Nevertheless, I wonder if those of us who like to argue about this moral point or that one miss the boat on what JKR is up to. As nrenka likes to remind us, many of the themes and issues we see in the books may be illusions -- and certainly we have evidence of that already. It may well be that JKR's intent is only to write an interesting story and get across one or two BIG moral points. The idea that JKR is writing a multi-leveled, subtle epic that is meant to address a range of moral and ethical issues could, in the end, turn out to have been barking up an empty tree. The final form of the saga is yet to be determined. It could very well end up being a complex and multi-leveled saga. I wouldn't be surprised if it did. I also would not be surprised, however, if things turned out to be much more simple and direct than we imagine. What do I mean by that? Well, it may be that characters don't end up being as grey as we imagine, for one thing. For all our talk of greyness, the fact is that already most of the characters fit pretty obviously on one side or the other of the great moral divide. Dumbledore, the Trio, most of the Hogwarts faculty, the Order, most of the Weasley family -- clearly good. Voldemort has turned out, disappointingly, to be a cardboard villain with all the complexity of a sledgehammer, and almost all the DEs fit quite comfortably with him in the "obviously and utterly evil" category. Umbridge, the Dursleys, the MOM as an institution, and Fudge and Scrimgeour as individuals, are clearly on the bad side of the line as well. Candidates for greyness remaining include Snape (obviously), Draco, Percy, and perhaps Narcissa. We will have to see whether they will remain grey or not. My suspicion is that most, if not all, of them will end up filed on one side or the other either by change or by revelation. On that subject, to play with fire, I was reading JKR's three-part- interview and wishing we had her tone of voice. We are assuming that when she said, in response to the question whether Snape was evil, "Well, you've read the book, what do you think?" that she was teasing. She may, perhaps, have been giving a straightforward answer (I don't think so, but it's possible). Let's not forget that this is the woman whose anvil-sized hints landed with a notable lack of noise. With regard to secondary moral issues, such as Harry breaking rules, Hermione hexing Marietta and McLaggen, and Ron abusing his prefect privileges -- well, it may be that in the end that JKR really doesn't think they are very important. We are talking about saving the world here, after all. Compared to that, who cares about a marked up potions textbook? Lupinlore From merylanna at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 06:15:12 2005 From: merylanna at yahoo.com (Merry Kinsella) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 23:15:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Trusting your instincts about Snape WAS: sexy Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050905061513.36302.qmail@web30109.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139582 "trouble_h2o" wrote: >From personal experince with abuse during my teen years, Professor Snape would have been the only teacher at Hogwarts that I might have told what was going on at home. > from my life experinces I see a man that can be trusted with personal secrects and demons and able to act in very difficult situations. Someone I can respect but not like all the time.<<< merylanna says: Thanks for this post. This is how I've felt about Snape since OoTP. This is the aspect of Snape that resonates for me more than any other. In OoTP, Dolores Umbridge stood in contrast to Snape - Snape was a model of consistency compared to her. As a reader, no matter how Harry felt about it, I felt relief and safety when Harry was in potions. If a student did the work, Snape might not kiss their ass but there was a good chance come OWL time the student would acquit themselves better than they would in many other classes with more user-friendly instructors. I don't even need to know why DD trusts Snape, I can FEEL - and see, per canon, til "Lightning Struck Tower" why DD trusts him. DD may have been a gift to Snape at a critical moment in SS's life, but I think SS was an invaluable gift to DD the second he returned to the side of right. The list of Snape's good deeds is only reported in the books, not often dramatized, and when they are dramatized, they are not gift-wrapped to us as "good" - unlike many other scenarios, JKR often gives us Snape's actions unadorned. She doesn't tell us how to feel, and I think this is deliberate misdirection on her part. But from combing the forests for the missing kids to reporting Harry's warnings about Sirius, to helping Katie Bell's hex to helping Dumbledore's hand, to healing Draco, to summoning stretchers for Sirius et al. beside the lake, to muttering countercurses while Quirrell tried to de-broom Harry - I think we've only skated the surface of Snape's activities on the side of right. Snape, in the books, seems to be the kind of guy who takes a good performance as lowest common denominator, and thus not deserving of extra points, and has no patience for slackers or dilatentes. We have seen in the pensieve - and in every other instance - that Snape is the furthest thing from a slacker or dillatente one could envision - he's not setting a standard for his pupils that he doesn't meet himself, and didn't meet himself as a student. It's canon, via Harry, that Snape "favors" Draco, but can anyone tell me an instance where Snape awards Slytherin a bunch of points? I can't recall him deducting points from Slytherin (while he's seen to deduct a lot from Gryffinder, but also from Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff). Does anyone remember where Snape awarded any house, anywhere, points? (despite rhetorical sounding question, am ready to be reminded of where Snape did award house points to Draco or some other Slytherin) Merylanna From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Sep 5 13:14:11 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 13:14:11 -0000 Subject: Snape's Attack on Flitwick In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139583 So many people to respond to! On Flitwick: First, it's possible Flitwick fainted. He had sprinted down several floors, from the fight outside the door to the Astronomy Tower into the dungeons. Just the exertion alone could have caused him to pass out. He's a small man, those are a lot of steps to *run*, and we don't know what sort of shape he's in, other than he can negotiate the stairs well enough when he isn't running and upset. Second, it's possible that Flitwick worked himself into such a lather that he overloaded and fainted. He's always been the fretful one. I suppose that makes him more suceptible to imagining this or that, getting himself more and more worked up. Hermione said Snape told her and Luna that Flitwick "collapsed", which almost sounds like something medical, other than passing out or fainting. Third, he was running. It's possible he simply slipped on something and fell, hitting his head. In the heat of the moment, whichever Snape you prefer, he honestly might not have noticed that Flitwick fell rather than collapsed. Fourth, Dumbledore told Harry a couple of times to 'wake Snape'. If Snape was asleep and Flitwick woke him, he might have reacted by stunning him, without meaning the guy any harm. You just don't go and wake people like Snape by shouting about Death Eaters and attacks, nor by bursting into the office talking (shouting?). Fifth, pure speculation: If Snape was expecting Harry to wake him, perhaps it was planned that he would stun him to keep him from being hurt or killed in a fight. This is purely speculation, and depends on Dumbledore knowing that something, though not exactly what, would happen while he was gone. This was the night (a night?) the *Order* was patrolling, along with others, the DA, and maybe non-Order teachers. With others possibly sleeping in reserve (Snape, at least as an excuse not to have him there the whole time?), to take over guard duty at a certain time. (Though, why Molly and Arthur weren't there if it was Order business, I don't know. They were 'on their way' in the chapter 'The Phoenix Lament'.) This was the night when Harry believed something might happen, based on Draco's celebration in the RofR. When Dumbledore saw that Harry could not go for Snape, he froze him in his cloak on the tower. He had tried to send Harry for Snape since they left the cave. Since he had provided for Order patrols, he could easily have set Harry up to be stunned by Snape when he went to fetch him. 'Wake him'. And, waking someone like Snape, who trusts no one, can easily result in one's being stunned, 'on accident' if anyone asked later. Dumbledore repeated a few times that Harry was too valuable to risk himself that night. If this is the case, and canon refuses to confirm or deny, then when Snape saw that he'd stunned *Flitwick*, he knew that everything had gone wrong. ESE! or ESG! or OFH!, he knew the basic plan was now useless. He diverted Hermione and Luna, either to keep them out of action or to protect them, and we know the rest. As for Flitwick being a duelling champion, it's possible. He may not have been as skittish as a younger man. Or, he just panics when faced with unscheduled events. Competition duels would have been set up beforehand, there were no surprises other than his opponent's moves. Also, that was when he was younger. He may now be out of practice. I do like the idea, though, that this was a story the staff circulated so Lockhart would leave Flitwick out of his club. It's perfect to get back at Lockhart, and would show that the staff was on to him early in the year. True or not, it's funny, just because it digs at Lockhart. Ceridwen. From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 5 13:29:11 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 13:29:11 -0000 Subject: numerous short replies, not all of them smart-ass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139584 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > Vivian wrote in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139475 : > > << So far JKR has only shown DEs (and former DEs) kill. She hasn't > shown any Order members killing yet?not even in self-defense. >> Catlady: > That depends on how precise is the word 'shown'. In the Pensieve scene > of Karkaroff's hearing in GoF: "Any others?" said Crouch coldly. > > "Why, yes there was Rosier," said Karkaroff hurriedly. "Evan > Rosier." > > "Rosier is dead," said Crouch. "He was caught shortly after you were, > too. He preferred to fight rather than coming quietly, and was killed > in the struggle." > > "Took a bit of me with him, though," whispered Moody to Harry's > right. Harry looked around at him once more, and saw him indicating > the large chunk out of his nose to Dumbledore. Marianne: But, was this Moody as OoP member killing Rosier, or was this Moody as Auror killing Rosier? Obviously, as he was an OoP member, then yes, he is an example of one of the good guys killing someone. However, he's a somewhat different case than the non-Auror members of OoP. He was working in a job where he had been given permission by his government to kill DEs, (but preferred not to do so, if what Sirius says about him in GoF is true). So, whether he was an Order member or not, he still may have killed Rosier. Maybe Vivian's original observation can be amended to state that JKR hasn't shown any Order members killing yet?not even in self-defense, with the exception of one person who had been given the legal right to do so. I think JKR is quite deliberately comparing a group of lawless terrorists who will stop at nothing to achieve their ends with a group that's dedicated to defeating them, but who will try to do so without using the same evil methods. Marianne From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Mon Sep 5 13:29:00 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:29:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] numerous short replies, not all of them smart-ass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050905132901.34755.qmail@web53305.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139585 Luckdragon wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139426 : << I wonder how many people would truly find Snape as attractive had Alan Rickman not portrayed him in the movies. >> Catlady: *sigh* I feel like I am constantly repeating that there were women (on the predecessor of this list, and elsewhere) who doted on Severus Snape *before the movie rights had even been sold*. His speech about the subtle beauty of the softly simmering cauldron had more to do with it than Alan Rickman's innate sexiness. Luckdragon: I must admit that Snape is passionate about teaching potions and that one speech had a romantic quality to it, but could you imagine Snape talking about a woman that way? It is so out of character for him, but I guess always a possibility. I still do not think the term sexy could be applied to Snape based on canon. If that lone speech is all it takes to set all the other misgivings aside it is a wonder the girls in his class weren't swooning over Snape as they did Lockhart. --------------------------------- Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 13:35:37 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 06:35:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius' declaration of loyalty in the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050905133537.61171.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139586 > Alla: > > This is the moment where I need clarification. You agree that > Sirius > was sincere, right? He would had been died for Peter, if asked. > > Could you tell me what are you objecting to? Just to the wording? > [SNIP] > And honestly I find Sirius attitude towards friendship to be the > one which makes whole lot of sense to me, especially considering > the experiences I had while growing up. If you find someone in this world in your lifetime who you would die for and who would die for you, congratulations, you are extremely fortunate. Most people are not strong enough for such drastic commitments, and the history books are full of incidents of people betraying their loved ones because of fear for themselves. Sirius had one such person in his life: James. What I am objecting to is the over-the-topness of a declaration like "you should have died for us like we would have died for you". If you're going to make that kind of statement about anyone, you'd better have thought long and hard about that person, seriously considered their weak points, their flaws, their blind spots, everything about that person that might cause them to let you down in the worst possible way at the worst possible time. Not just because you slept in the same dorm for seven years, gave each other dumb nicknames and did pranks together. Sirius didn't know Peter very well - obviously, and the post-GH fiasco events prove it. But there are strong hints that Sirius should have known that using Peter as an SK wasn't a good idea. In the Pensieve incident, Peter is careful to be behind the other Marauders when he watches "hungrily" their humilation of Snape. His sycophantish exhuberance strikes even Harry - who can be quite unobservant - as more than slightly whack. And earlier Sirius slapped Peter down ruthlessly and apparently doesn't regard him with much respect. How on earth did he then decide that he could trust Peter with his own - or James' and Lily's and Harry's - life? A guy who only a few years earlier was almost "wetting his pants" over James' playing with the snitch? Even if Peter wasn't a traitor - even if he was just the weakest Marauder, "talentless" as Sirius puts it - then trusting him with anyone's life was beyond stupid. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link; you don't just give it one tug and think you've evaluated the risks properly. > Alla: > > Hmmm, post HBP, I would argue that this declaration of Sirius may > come back with the vengeance in book 7. Consider - the sincerity of > Sirius declaration may hint at the fact that Marauders' friendship > WAS genuine in many aspects despite people putting so much emphasis > on James and Sirius remarks towards Peter in pensieve scene. I > suspect that was their way to make jokes and that they did like > Peter as a friends,even if they may consider his magical skills to > be a bit weaker than theirs. One of the biggest myths of the series is the so-called "friendship" between the four Marauders. There was one strong friendship (James and Sirius), and one close compansionship (James and Sirius and Remus - imagine Lee Jordan's friendship with Fred and George), and one tag-along cheering section (Peter; I think McGonagall nailed his status in the group perfectly). These were not four equals striding shoulder-to-shoulder into the sunset; this was a very unequal social arrangement between four dorm-mates. > Are you completely discarding the idea that Peter may have regrets > sometimes that he abandoned the genuine friendship and sold his > friends to Voldemort? Yes, I am. Peter had no sincere feelings of friendship for any of them. He wanted to tag along with the Big Men on Campus and he was prepared to be humiliated as the price for this privilege. James and Sirius missed it because they projected their own feelings onto Peter. > Maybe we will learn that to some extent Peter did share the > sentiment of Sirius' declaration and that is why he would act the > way I am suspecting he may in book 7. If Peter tries to help Harry in Book 7 it will be because he's decided that Harry will prevail and he wants to get in on the ground floor with the new BMOC. And frankly, that's not a bad career strategy because now that the Potters have been betrayed and the re-birthing ceremony has been completed, Voldemort really has no use for Peter anymore. Peter is entirely expendable, and I'm sure Peter is painfully aware of it. Peter is not anxious to be back in Voldemort's presence and that's why Snape taunts him in Chapter 2. Peter is one of the most dangerous people in the series because he'll do terrible things out of blind panic and he has no moral sensibility at all. Even the Malfoys have some family feeling for each other; Peter would sacrifice anything to stay alive. Magda ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 5 13:58:04 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 13:58:04 -0000 Subject: Snape's Remorse vs. Snape's Worst Memory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139587 Ah, yes, just what we've been lacking around here lately - a Snape thread. I was pondering what DD told us and Harry in Chap. 29: Harry let out a yell of mirthless laughter. "He hated my dad like he hated Sirius! Haven't you noticed, Professor, how the people Snape hates tend to end up dead?" "You have no idea of the remorse Professor Snape felt when he realised how Lord Voldemort had interpreted the prophecy, Harry. I believe it to be the greatest regret of his life and the reason he returned-" end quote The events surrounding the prophesy were enough to so overwhelm Snape with remorse that he changed from an active DE to someone working for Voldemort's downfall. This is life-changing, dangerous stuff taking place in the middle of a chaotic and deadly war. It strikes me now as a little peculiar that Snape's worst memory should still be his ambush by James and Sirius after their O.W.L. in fifth year. If you subscribe to the "Snape loves/loved Lily" scenario, then surely the part Snape played that led directly to her death would be a worse memory than being a victim of an act of bullying. And, even if Snape did not have feelings for Lily, this horrible moment of realization of what Voldemort intended to do with the knowledge of the prophecy IMO seems like a worse memory than what we've been told was Snape's worst memory. Unless of course, Snape's tale of remorse is a whole lot of hooey. Or his remorse was for Lily only, and he secretly danced a jig about James' death. Or that, when titling chapters for OoP, no one thought carefully about Snape's story line in HBP. Marianne From mimbeltonia at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 13:47:55 2005 From: mimbeltonia at yahoo.com (mimbeltonia) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 13:47:55 -0000 Subject: What's Snape got to do with it? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139588 Mimbeltonia butting in again, with an old focus on what seems to be the main subject still: Is Snape good or evil, sexy or disgusting, faithful or deceiving... I don't really have much of an issue with that. He is an interesting and complex character, he is not supposed from the author's point of view to be a pleasant fellow, but may or may not have good intentions in the end. BUT: Where Snape stands at the end of HBP is to me mainly interesting from the Dumbledore angle: Could Dumbledore be so stupid? Could the main moral of book 6 be "do not trust to well and to easily" or "old men make mistakes"? To me, Dumbledore behaves much like he knows he is soon going to die. Uncharacteristically he presents his point of view, politely but firmly, to the Dursleys. He keeps repeating that he himself can be sacrificed, but Harry is too valuable. I believe Dumbledore does not wish for Snape to have to kill him, but that he even less wants Malfoy to have to do it. If Dumbledore is killed destroying a horcrux all the better, he seems to think - nobody will have to taint themselves with performing the avada kedavra. In my opinion Dumbledore is not faultless, and does make mistakes as he himself admits. But, getting himself and thereby all his followers duped by Snape is too much for me to accept. He can in my opinion make good and bad choices, but I don't think it lies within his role in the books to not be the one in charge. And begging for his life before being killed by someone he trusted through and through... No, to me that is to much of a degradation. Let Snape be whoever he is, I am sure that Dumbledore controlled him either way. -mimbeltonia From muellem at bc.edu Mon Sep 5 14:13:49 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 14:13:49 -0000 Subject: Snape's Remorse vs. Snape's Worst Memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139589 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kiricat4001" wrote: > Ah, yes, just what we've been lacking around here lately - a Snape > thread. > > I was pondering what DD told us and Harry in Chap. 29: > > Harry let out a yell of mirthless laughter. > > "He hated my dad like he hated Sirius! Haven't you noticed, > Professor, how the people Snape hates tend to end up dead?" > > "You have no idea of the remorse Professor Snape felt when he > realised how Lord Voldemort had interpreted the prophecy, Harry. I > believe it to be the greatest regret of his life and the reason he > returned-" > end quote > > I have been thinking about that passage a lot lately. Is it only me, or could it have been that Dumbledore might have revealed the real reason why Snape returned, if he hadn't been interrupted by Harry. The "-" in Dumbledore's sentence before Harry said "But he's a very good t Occlumens, isn't he, sir?" makes me think that Dumbledore had more to say on this topic before Harry asked him that question. Usually, when you see that dash(-) at the end of a sentence, it means that someone is interrupted before the sentence could be completed or the person's train of thought has just trailed off. Break down DD's sentence into 2 parts "I believe it to be the greatest regret of his life" <== the telling of the prophecy to Voldemort. "The reason he returned-" <== DD was beginning to tell Harry why Snape truly returned - The reason he returned was because of something or other... Or maybe I am just reading WAY too much into this passage. I could be. colebiacardi From vmonte at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 14:24:25 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 14:24:25 -0000 Subject: numerous short replies, not all of them smart-ass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139590 >Pippin wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/138999 : << Jo has already said that Harry can't learn [Occlumency] -- he's too damaged. >> >Catlady responded: I thought Jo said that Harry can't learn Occlumency because he isn't damaged enough. (I'm not going into detail because so many posters have already done so.) vmonte now: JKR: "...I had an interesting discussion, I thought, with my editor Emma, about Draco. She said to me, "So, Malfoy can do Occlumency," which obviously Harry never mastered and has now pretty much given up on doing, or attempting. And she was querying this and wondering whether he should be as good as it, but I think Draco would be very gifted in Occlumency, unlike Harry. Harry's problem with it was always that his emotions were too near the surface and that he is in some ways too damaged. But he's also very in touch with his feelings about what's happened to him. He's not repressed, he's quite honest about facing them, and he couldn't suppress them, he couldn't suppress these memories. 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? So he suppresses virtually all of the good side of himself." (MN/TLC 2,pp16-17) Sorry, Catlady you're wrong. >Lady Indigo wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139123 : << tbernhard2000: Snape found refuge at Hogwarts too. Lady Indigo: When? >> >Catlady: As a grown man who turned against the Dark Lord. vmonte now: As a grown man that wanted to avoid prison time. >Vivian wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139183 : << We know that Snape has used Legimency on people before-- Fake!Moody on the stairs, >> >Catlady: This confuses me. How could Snape have used Legilimency on Fake!Moody without noticing that he was fake? Surely one's self-identity is present in one's mind all one's waking time, like a background noise? vmonte: "Meaning what?" Snape turned again to look at Moody, his hands still outstretched, inches from Harry's chest. "Meaning that Dumbledore's very interested to know who's got it in for that boy!" said Moody, limping nearer still to the foot of the stairs. "And so am I, Snape...very interested..." The torch-light flickered across his mangled face, so that the scars, and the chunk missing from his nose, looked deeper and darker than ever. Snape was looking down at Moody, and Harry couldn't see the expression on his face. For a moment, nobody moved or said anything. Then Snape slowly lowered his hands. "I merely thought," said Snape, in a voice of forced calm, "that if Potter was wandering around after hours again...it's an unfortunate habit of his...he should be stopped. For--his own safety." "Ah, I see," said Moody softly. "Got Potter's best interests at heart, have you?" There was a pause. Snape and Moody were still staring at each other. Mrs. Norris gave a loud meow, still peering around Filch's legs, looking for the source of Harry's bubble-bath smell. "I think I will go back to bed, "Snape said curtly. "Best idea you've had all night," said Moody. (p473-474, GoF) Something happened here. Is this just a staring contest? >Luckdragon wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139426 : << I wonder how many people would truly find Snape as attractive had Alan Rickman not portrayed him in the movies. >> >Catlady: *sigh* I feel like I am constantly repeating that there were women (on the predecessor of this list, and elsewhere) who doted on Severus Snape *before the movie rights had even been sold*. His speech about the subtle beauty of the softly simmering cauldron had more to do with it than Alan Rickman's innate sexiness. vmonte: Yes, Snape's gift is that he is great at verbally manipulating people. It's a gift that he shares with Iago. >Vivian wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139475 : << So far JKR has only shown DEs (and former DEs) kill. She hasn't shown any Order members killing yet?not even in self-defense. >> >Catlady: That depends on how precise is the word 'shown'. In the Pensieve scene of Karkaroff's hearing in GoF: "Any others?" said Crouch coldly. "Why, yes there was Rosier," said Karkaroff hurriedly. "Evan Rosier." "Rosier is dead," said Crouch. "He was caught shortly after you were, too. He preferred to fight rather than coming quietly, and was killed in the struggle." "Took a bit of me with him, though," whispered Moody to Harry's right. Harry looked around at him once more, and saw him indicating the large chunk out of his nose to Dumbledore. vmonte: We were not shown, we were told about an incident from the past. Wouldn't you feel horrible, knowing what we know now (that killing splits your soul), if Harry had killed Bellatrix in OOTP--even if it was in self-defense. I would. Vivian From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 14:51:42 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 14:51:42 -0000 Subject: Sirius' declaration of loyalty in the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: <20050905133537.61171.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139591 Magda: > What I am objecting to is the over-the-topness of a declaration like > "you should have died for us like we would have died for you". If > you're going to make that kind of statement about anyone, you'd > better have thought long and hard about that person, seriously > considered their weak points, their flaws, their blind spots, > everything about that person that might cause them to let you down in > the worst possible way at the worst possible time. Not just because > you slept in the same dorm for seven years, gave each other dumb > nicknames and did pranks together. Alla: But if person thinks abous such declaration, it loses the sincerity and becomes calculation, no? I think that Snape for example would have made such declaration only if it suited him ( JMO of course) To me it is such a defining moment, which speaks volumes about Sirius' character. Someone who is willing to die for his friend, even if such friend does not deserve the gesture ( sincere gesture, if I may), to me deserves praise. Magda: > Sirius didn't know Peter very well - obviously, and the post-GH > fiasco events prove it. Alla: I agree, he obviously did not know Peter very well, but are you saying that fact makes Sirius' gesture less worthy, whether Peter deserved it or not? Magda: > One of the biggest myths of the series is the so- called "friendship" > between the four Marauders. There was one strong friendship (James > and Sirius), and one close compansionship (James and Sirius and Remus > - imagine Lee Jordan's friendship with Fred and George), and one > tag-along cheering section (Peter; I think McGonagall nailed his > status in the group perfectly). These were not four equals striding > shoulder-to-shoulder into the sunset; this was a very unequal social > arrangement between four dorm-mates. Alla: Sorry for being repetitive, but isn't the fact that Sirius is willing to die for Peter contradicts your statement that it was " a very unequal social arrangement between four dorm-mates"? I mean, sure friendship between Sirius and James was the closest, but I don't think that one is willling to die for the person whom they simply considered to be a tag- along. To me it is a strong sign that Sirius considered Peter to be much more than that. JMO, Alla From muellem at bc.edu Mon Sep 5 15:04:48 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 15:04:48 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139592 colebiancardi intro: as eggplant has only snipped one liners, I cannot snip anymore from the response, as the whole meaning of the thread will be lost. --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > "colebiancardi" wrote: > > > I don't believe in the theory that > > what one does should be measured > > against what other people have done. > > That may be the root of our disagreement because I do believe in that > theory, I think it is how to tell good people from bad people. again, you've missed the whole point of a personal moral compass. It has nothing to do with how to tell good from bad people. Let me rephrase - Other people's actions and misdeeds should not be the green light for Harry to disregard what he knows is right. How does LV, Umbridge & Snape have anything to do with Harry not returning the book when asked? Nothing. It is called your own moral compass. Harry is not a 2 year old - he knows right from wrong at this point and time. > > > he [Harry] should have handed the > > book to Snape when asked. > > I would not have done that. I know of no one would have done that. I > can think of no reason to respect Snape's demand to the slightest > extent. Hermoine would have. Ron would have. Neville would have - many students would have given Snape the proper respect that as a Professor he commands. Dumbledore and others are always reminding Harry to give Snape respect - they are always correcting him and making him say Professor Snape. > > > He never told any authority figure > > at Hogwarts about it > > To my mind by book 6 Harry Potter is an authority figure, an authority > figure superior to any other now that Dumbledore has been murdered. Again, unless you have canon that Harry knows about Dumbledore's *murder* at this point in the book, he cannot be a superior authority figure. And don't split hairs, it is not what you think, but what Rowling has put down for us in the book. Harry is not an authority figure - he is still an underage wizard and still learning. Authority figures could have been McGonagall or Dumbledore - it didn't need to be Snape. > > > Snape calls him [Harry] a liar & cheat > > If a murderer does not approve of my actions I would consider that a > high complement. Again, you disregarded my comment - Harry does not know at this point in the book that Snape is a murderer. And personally, regardless of the position one may take of Snape at the END of this book, Snape is correct - Harry lied & cheated. > > > If Harry had to make a potion on > > his own, he couldn't do it. > > Nor could any other student, even Hermione. but that is not the point, is it? Snape could have at that age. You stated Harry *deserved* the book - I stated he deserved an education. Which he didn't get by using other people's(Snape's) notes. > > > Harry is just starting out > > And some part of Harry's mind must realize he's most likely just about > to end and he will never be an old man. And that excuses his misdeeds? Wow. Didn't know that gave someone carte blanche to do whatever they wanted to do, because they thought they are going to die young. > > > He [Harry] needs to dampen his hatred > > That is the conventional wisdom, it's very very politically correct > and even JKR may agree, but I do not. I think that in the proper time > and place hatred is as valid and useful an emotion as any other. > It isn't politically correct - it is a fact. And you may not agree, but Rowling does(her whole love theme) and she is the creator of these books. Blind hatred stunts the emotional capacity for one to grow into a decent person. We have Snape as a prime example. He is(IMHO) a person working for the good side, but he is a nasty man. Do you want Harry to be like Snape? Because if he continues down this path, he will ultimately become like him. I don't believe for one NY minute that Rowling wishes Harry not to have moral fiber and a moral compass. If everyone was doing something *bad*, would you do it? Does their behavior excuse your behavior? I think not. colebiancardi (who wishes posters wouldn't just cut a sentence here & there, as the whole meaning of my post is lost - which can only mean that the responder has no clue what I was trying to post) From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Sep 5 15:46:25 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 15:46:25 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty In-Reply-To: <63378ee7050904152179e87b30@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139593 Lady Indigo: > The Harry apologists are sounding suspiciously like the Snape apologists again. Not that Snape has been through nearly as much, or that Harry's crimes are anywhere near Snape's magnitude, but just what is the appropriate ratio of personal trauma to completely unrelated moral error,exactly? > Can we please call a spade a spade here? Harry did a bad thing and never regretted it, trying to cover it up further and getting upset when he was caught and punished for it. People, including Harry, ' make mistakes, but I'd like to see the indication that these *are* mistakes be delivered out of a mouth that isn't Snape's. Pippin: I think there's a deliberate parallel between Harry's misuse of the book and Snape's misuse of his authority. Regardless of whether you think the methods themselves are legitimate, Harry failed to use the book for the reason he was allowed to have it: to enable the study of potions. He used it to get the edge in a contest, to underline his dominance, to settle some old scores, and for the gratification of being compared to his parent, whether he deserved to be or not. Sounds like Snape's treatment of Harry, no? That Harry allowed these reasons to undermine the legitimate one is shown by his problems with Golpallot's Third Law. It doesn't look right now as if Harry will ever take his NEWTs, but he'd be up a tree without a broomstick if the practical exam was "Construct an antidote for the given poison" and there was no bezoar handy, or the given poison happened to be one for which a bezoar won't work. Slughorn did indicate, gently, that the study of antidotes would be worthwhile. It's not entirely Harry's fault that he's unfamiliar with it. IIRC, he missed most of the lesson on antidotes in fourth year when he was called out for the weighing of the wands. Under ordinary circumstances Harry could have asked either Hermione or Slughorn (who's the most approachable teacher he's had since Lupin) to explain it to him. But Harry's trapped by the image he's created of an instinctive understanding of potions, and Hermione, who knows full well he has no such thing, is understandably disgusted with him. (Not that she handled it very well. This was Hermione's year to be a trial to her friends, just as it was Harry's last year, and Ron's the year before.) I'm not saying for a minute that Snape's behavior is morally equivalent, but it may be psychologically so, perhaps in the same way that Voldemort's collecting is a malignant version of Slughorn's. For both Snape and Harry, I think the underlying problem is not so much sadism ( though surely Harry smirked to see Hermione and Draco struggle) as a deep underlying insecurity. I think that is what Dumbledore, if he and I are not completely deluded about Snape's nature, was trying to help Snape and Harry see. Of course it could be we *are* deluded, and Rowling has got tired of writing a bildungsroman and turned the whole thing into an Italian revenge tragedy. But I have Faith . Pippin From quigonginger at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 16:11:16 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 16:11:16 -0000 Subject: Flitwick, Harry's book, sexy Snape, Harry's heart Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139594 Whew! I'm caught up and addressing all the issues on my brain. The usual "this is my opinion and others are free to have theirs" applies throughout. Here goes! Flitwick: There's been a lot of discussion about FF's deuling ability. Was he a champ? The quote comes to mind: "Judge me by my size, do you? And well you should not." The quote comes from Yoda, one of only 2 Jedi to survive Episode III (counting Vader as a Sith and not including babies). Hand to hand combat may favour a larger person, but when wands and light sabres come into play, only skill, practice and knowledge count. So... Did he startle Snape, who blasted first and asked questions later, and then realized what had been said and rushed off to deal with the situation at hand? Did he collapse on his own after "sprinting" down to the dungeons? Did Snape zap him purposly to keep from being followed? I'd think that as a dueler, FF is a force to be reckoned with. Perhaps Snape didn't want the Force to be with him. I'd say all 3 are valid readings. If I had to pick, I'd say #1. Never startle a sleeping man with a wand. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_ Harry's book: I don't think this has been brought up, (sorry if it has) but at the beginning of the year Harry has no idea how old the book is, how long Sluggy has been teaching, whether or not there was a teacher between Sluggy and Snape, or when the notes were added to the book. For all he knows, the notes could have been taken by a student from things said by a teacher (Snape, Sluggy or other) and written in the book rather than on parchment. On the first day of class, he wins the Felix potion, following the directions in the book. At this point, I don't think he's cheating. He hasn't had time to really look at the book and see the questionable things like the spells. For all he knew at that point, someone may just have updated an old book, and the others, with newer texts may have had those in their book to begin with. When I was in 6th grade, a teacher once (after the usual admonishments that the books were school property and we should never write in them) had us correct an outdated sentance. The book said that for proper hygiene, a person should bathe or shower once a week. The teacher had us change that to "at least twice a week". The original note that Harry followed, "crush it with a silver knife", seems to be in that vein. Something new was discovered and noted in the book. So at the start, I don't think he was doing anything wrong. After clearly seeing that Hermione's text differs, and later when he finds the spells, he is fully aware that his book is indeed different. >From that point on, he crossed into questionable territory. Had it been me, I'd have asked Sluggy about the notes to find out whether they were valid or not. But then, it would have killed the plot. I guess that's why there never was a book called "QuiGon-Ginger and the Half-Bathed Prince". _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_ Sexy Snape: Am I the only one who found JKR's drawing of Snape to be Sexy? Rickman was sexy in Robin Hood. I didn't find his Snape to be anything near that drool-worthy. My reading of Snape is far sexier than that. But to each our own ;) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_ Harry's heart: A thought struck me from out of the blue. We know that Harry has a "power that LV knows not". The general belief is that it is love. I'll go with that, but I think there is something else that Harry has in his heart that LV only understands in a half-twisted way. That is courage. (Yes, I know, this isn't a news flash. He is, after all, a Gryffidor.) Different people fear different things. LV fears death. I fear car washes, snakes, and lawn chairs, but not death. Who's braver? Me or LV? It depends on whether we are faced with an AK (or, in my case, AK-47) or those nasty revolving brushes coming at you with nothing but a bit of glass that could break at any minute and be ground into your face by those nasty revolving brushes. Eww, back to Harry and LV. I think it is courage that saved him in the DoM. When he realized that in dying, he'd be with Sirius again, he not only showed love, but courage. He overcame the fear of death, which is LV's greatest fear. If we go back to the graveyard scene in GoF, Harry decided to face, and possibly accept, death. He decided to die on his feet, fighting like his father. This courage in the face of death happened even before the Phoenix started singing. LV, on the other hand, was described as "his face livid with fear" when facing the echos of his victims. Death looked him in the face, and he was afraid. Death looked Harry in the face, and he rose to the challenge. I think in the end this will be Harry's strongest weapon. He is not afraid of LV's greatest fear. He will go into their final battle no holds barred, no fear, ready to give everything, even his life if necessary, to defeat LV. Hopefully, he will have destroyed the Horcruces by then. If he keeps his wits about him, this will be a powerful weapon in addition to dueling. If he can keep up an ongoing patter along the lines of "You're going to die, Tom. I destroyed your locket. And your cup. And your ... (insert other Horcruces) You will die. Perhaps not today, but you will die. If you kill me, there will always be another. And another. I am but one man. You can kill me and others will come after. But you will die. It's over. You are no more immortal than I." he may wear LV down and force him to make crucial mistakes. OK, so there's a reason I'm not a writer, (That last paragraph sounds familiar- does it ring a bell with anyone else? Reply offlist, please. It's bugging me.) but you get the gist of it. Harry's courage will wear down LV faster than his deuling skills. That said, Harry'd better get working on those skills so that he lasts long enough to get through the first sentance. Oh, another thought from out of the blue! What if that Sectumsempra is the spell needed to split open the Horcruces and release the trapped Voldysoul? Cool or what? Winding down now. Thanks to everyone who has read this far. If this posts twice, please accept my appologies. YM seems to have eaten the original draft. Ginger, asking that we keep the hurricane victims in our thoughts and/or prayers and help as we can. It's times like this we need each other. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Sep 5 16:21:00 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 16:21:00 -0000 Subject: Snape's Remorse vs. Snape's Worst Memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139596 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kiricat4001" wrote: > The events surrounding the prophesy were enough to so overwhelm Snape with remorse that he changed from an active DE to someone working for Voldemort's downfall. This is life-changing, dangerous stuff taking place in the middle of a chaotic and deadly war. It strikes me now as a little peculiar that Snape's worst memory should still be his ambush by James and Sirius after their O.W.L. in fifth year. > Pippin: Snape put *three* memories in the pensieve. Presumably Harry was seeing them in chronological order and only encountered the first. If Harry had only seen Bagman's trial in the pensieve, he'd have come away with a very different picture of how suspected Death Eaters fared in the courts. It could be that we can understand why this memory is Snape's worst only in conjunction with the other two. Or it could be that the narrator was reflecting Harry's point of view and was simply wrong. Dumbledore said that Snape's relaying the prophecy to Voldemort was the greatest regret of his life. So I guess the question is, do you believe the narrator or do you believe Dumbledore? The narrator has proven to be unreliable before -- for example telling us that Harry's parents died in a car crash.Though Dumbledore has often not told Harry everything he knows, and has often not bothered to correct Harry's misconceptions, I don't believe he has ever directly lied to him. But I have a problem with the whole idea that Snape put those memories in the pensieve to protect his mind from Harry, or Voldemort seeing through Harry. It doesn't seem that putting a memory in the pensieve erases it from your mind, so Harry must have been wrong about that. Now, presumably Dumbledore knows all about how a pensieve works, but Voldemort doesn't, so Harry was allowed to draw a wrong conclusion in order to mislead Voldie, and make him think that Snape is a weaker occlumens than he actually is. In any case, Snape chose a memory that didn't need to be hidden from Voldemort--Wormtail could have told him all about it. Whether that's true of the others, we can't say. Pippin From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 5 16:25:51 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 16:25:51 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139597 "colebiancardi" wrote: > How does LV, Umbridge & Snape have > anything to do with Harry not > returning the book when asked? It puts the level of misdeed, if there was a misdeed at all, into perspective. > many students would have given > Snape the proper respect that > as a Professor he commands. Unlike many other students it has been Harry's policy to give Snape the absolute minimum level of respect he can get away with, and for that I applaud Harry. > Dumbledore and others are always > reminding Harry to give Snape respect Yes and we now know that Dumbledore can be disastrously and fatally wrong. > unless you have canon that Harry > knows about Dumbledore's *murder* Chapter 27. > he cannot be a superior authority figure. Harry's situation has changed, he is no longer the na?ve little boy we saw in book 1. Harry is an adult now, he's no longer in school, Dumbledore is dead, and he is the only one on the planet who has a chance of killing Voldemort; I'm sure Harry will always be open to suggestions but at this point in his life he no longer has a reason to defer to anyone's authority. Harry is the Authority now. > Harry does not know at this point > in the book that Snape is a murderer But Harry does very strongly suspect that Snape is a traitor, a suspicion that proved to be correct. > You stated Harry *deserved* the book Actually what I said was that right or wrong if I were Harry I'd feel like I deserved that book. > I stated he deserved an education. > Which he didn't get by using other > people's(Snape's) notes. I think Ron said it best when he said Harry was just following a different (and better) set of instructions. > I don't believe for one NY minute > that Rowling wishes Harry not to > have moral fiber and a moral compass. Not exactly a controversial statement. Obviously she doesn't want to turn Harry into a Snape, but I don't think she wants to turn him into a goody two shoes Dudley Doright character either. I hope not anyway. > wishes posters wouldn't just cut > a sentence here & there, as the > whole meaning of my post is lost Those wishing to read your entire post will have absolutely no difficulty doing so, thus I see no need to clutter things up and repeat all of it here, just enough to let people know what I'm responding too. I think one of the worse inventions of all time is the "respond" button, I'll bet if people had to laboriously type in all quoted material we wouldn't see things like a full screen of quotes followed by a 5 word comment. > the responder has no clue > what I was trying to post Well, could be, but I do my best. Eggplant From vmonte at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 16:31:53 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 16:31:53 -0000 Subject: Not literally... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139598 vmonte: I also want to add that I really liked the Snape is a Vampire theory. There is a lot in canon that points to some kind of connection, unfortunately, the connections were interpreted incorrectly. If we keep it simple the easiest connection is that Snape has predatory characteristics. This idea acknowledges the connection without giving Snape a condition that let's him off the hook for his bad behavior. Look at one theory I believed - Ron=DD The most complicated idea is that the connections I saw between Ron and Dumbledore meant that Ron was Dumbledore. (DUH!) The easiest explanation is that there is something symbolic going on. Ron represents the Gryffindor line of defense (chess game, The Philosopher's Stone). Maybe the Weasleys and Dumbledore are related to you know who. Or, even simpler, JKR is foreshadowing Ron's future skill as a strategist in book 7. Vivian From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Mon Sep 5 16:44:01 2005 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 16:44:01 -0000 Subject: Grindelwald taught Tom about making Horcruxes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139599 Tom Riddle made the diary Horcrux in about 1942 or 1943 ... is that correct? So where did that 16 year old learn how to make Horcruxes? He didn't learn that in Hogwarts. I propose Grindelwald taught Tom about Horcruxes. If that is so, wouldn't Grindelwald also have made a Horcrux or two? He could teach what he knew. Now, JKR has said Grindelwald was defeated, but in her latest interview, there was a lot of unanswered questions about that Dark Wizard. I have some more ideas about him ... without making this TOO long, let the discussion begin and see if we have similar theories. -aussie- From miamibarb at BellSouth.net Mon Sep 5 16:44:44 2005 From: miamibarb at BellSouth.net (Barb Roberts) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 12:44:44 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Academic dishonesty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <74865f144fbd349655e321c14e43ac2e@bellsouth.net> No: HPFGUIDX 139600 Magda: > Nor do I find Hermione's attitude unsympathetic.? She's not jealous > of the unknown Prince, but she's a mite ticked that Harry - after > years of cheerfully accepting her help with a variety of subjects - > has now taken up with a new study aid and feels safe enough to openly > blow her off.? Harry was willing to share the notes with Ron--who couldn't read them. I'm sure that he would have let the Hermione use the notes out of class. if she had wanted to. I think a couple of other issues involved in this disagreement. One, it believe It points out again that children from wizarding families have an unfair advantage at Hogwarts. This was Snape's book and where did he get the notes? I'm sure he didn't come up with them in his dorm room. Potions is rather like a chemistry lab. I doubt that a student would be able to fire up a cauldron in the dorms to practice. Not sure that one could use an empty classroom either. I'm sure that teacher's would want to supervise any potion-making...just in case. Either Snape had time to experiment on his own in the summer or somehow he had received outside instruction. Since this book is old enough to be Snape's mother's book, I guess that the notes may have been from her. There is a sense in which Harry, who comes from a wizarding family, is receiving the help that he perhaps would have been getting all along, if his parent's had lived. Two, it points out that Harry is more willing then Hermione to take risks and trust his intutition. At first, it was quite risky on Harry's part to follow them--the notes had not proven themselves. It wasn't until Harry realizes that the notes are superior to the text that Harry's using them without owning up to his source is little questionable. It does point out though that if Hermione wants to make her mark in the academic or real world that she has to be willing to branch out a bit. She is too determined to stay on the accepted course even when the course is not working for her. I believe this foreshadows why Harry will be a great wizard and Hermione may end up being a very good one. Why? As the sorting hat said, Harry's has all the ingredients fro being great--he's intelligent enough, supremely talented and ambitious. He's also very brave. Barbara Roberts (Ivogun) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Mon Sep 5 16:46:07 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 16:46:07 -0000 Subject: Sexy Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139601 >Elsye wrote: Also I think that what JKR wants to show children is that just because people are ugly and mean doesnt mean they do not possess other worthy redeeming qualities vmonte responds: Ok, then tell me what those redeeming qualities are? What are they? Elyse rolls up her sleeves, takes a deep breath and plunges in: Admittedly, JKR has been most reluctant to say anything good about Snape but thats fine. We'll just have to start from basics. The man has a presence. How many times have we been told that "Snape's mere presence was enough to induce silence in the classroom"? Hes got a crackling electric vitality that gives him away no matter how quiet he wants to be. There is also the fact that Snape demonstrates great expertise in Potions, creating the Wolfsbane Potion and Veritaserum, both of which are rare and difficult mixtures. I know his skills as a teacher have been debated, but there is no doubt he has a passion for the subject. "I don't expect you will really understand the beauty of the softly simmering cauldron with its shimmering fumes, the delicate power of liquids that creep through human veins, bewitching the mind, ensnaring the senses..." He is an exteremely powerful wizard. He correctly identified the curse Quirrel was using (McGonagall was clueless) and was successfully using the countercurse We have been told any number of times that he is a superb Occlumens perhaps the best in the world considering he has been lying for at least three years to Voldemort, Dumbledore or both. And I doubt Voldemort picks incompetent people to be Death Eaters. Even weak grovelling Pettigrew was able to blast a street full of 13 Muggles with his wand behind his back. We know he was intelligent in school.He had written a lot more in his DADA OWL even with miniscule handwriting. He was definitely creative. He invented his own powerful curses (dangerous, but still powerful) at the age of 16. This is something not even Hermione,or Percy Weasley has been known to do. He always has an "unfathomable" expression on his face. But this is what makes him an excellent double agent. The poised calm surface of his character is carefully designed to hide the boiling inner nature. Emotions are rarely reflected on his frozen immobile face. I'm sure he proudly and consciously practises a blank expression, commanding his features to remain firm. Such mastery of personality has to be envied. When asked for an opinion, he gives the naked brutal truth. It is beneath him to flatter. Granted, his remarks are mean, nasty, savagely sadistic, but they are undeniably true. If he is going to be described as an ugly man with yellow teeth, I think it is only fair for him to comment on Hermione's which *are* larger than usual. If Neville wasnt such a failure at potions, and Harry ,mediocre at other subjects in general, Snape couldnt have the opportunity to tell him so.You surely dont expect him to say "Bad luck Longbottom but I'm sure youll get it right someday" Last but not least, the fact that he is a double agent speaks for itself no matter which side he is on. In the ESG!Snape scenario, lets not forget that he went to Voldemort, one hour late, to possile, even probable death, without so much as a tremor. "You know what I must ask you to do. If you are ready . . . if you are prepared ..." "I am," he says. This shows "pure nerve and outstanding courage". Alongwith this bravery, remember he has successfully walked a tightrope between both sides for a few years now. I am sure it called for resourcefulness, quick thinking, sharp observation skills, Oscar-worthy acting, fast decision making abilities, remaining calm in a crisis,complete inner confidence, sureness of purpose. To sum up, here is a man, with skillful expertise and a passion for Potions (and DADA). An extremely competent, amazingly powerful wizard, possibly the greatest Occlumens the world has ever seen. A paragon of self control, intelligent and creative, with a brutal honesty. His incredible courage of course is beyond question. I hate to use your own quote against you but: JKR:However, everyone should keep their eye on Snape, I'll just say that because there is *more to him* than meets the eye...... Elyse From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Mon Sep 5 16:56:58 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Brenda) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 16:56:58 -0000 Subject: Not literally... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139602 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > vmonte: >> > Or, even simpler, JKR is foreshadowing Ron's future skill as a > strategist in book 7. > Luckdragon: I've always thought the reason Jo put all the chess games in was to show Ron's strength as a strategist. My belief is that each of the trio will come together in the end using his/her strength in a combined effort to overcome LV, just as they did in PS/SS. Hermione=logic=the head/voice Ron=strategy=the hand Harry=courage&drive=the heart of course the three different wand cores of the trio will also play an important role as LV has forced Olivander to create the ultimate wand to prevent a recurrance of the graveyard scene in GOF. Brenda(who still likes the Snape related to Vampires theory despite what she's told). From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 16:59:27 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:59:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius' declaration of loyalty in the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050905165927.7827.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139603 >> Magda: >> What I am objecting to is the over-the-topness of a declaration >> like "you should have died for us like we would have died for >> you". If you're going to make that kind of statement about >> anyone, you'd better have thought long and hard about that >> person, seriously considered their weak points, their flaws, >> their blind spots, everything about that person that might cause >> them to let you down in the worst possible way at the worst >> possible time. > Alla: > But if person thinks abous such declaration, it loses the sincerity > and becomes calculation, no? You're damn right it becomes calculation, one of the most important calculations anyone can possibly make. If a declaration like the above is tossed off without calculation or considering the consequences, then the person making the declaration is pretty stupid. > Alla: > To me it is such a defining moment, which speaks volumes about > Sirius' character. Someone who is willing to die for his friend, > even if such friend does not deserve the gesture ( sincere gesture, > if I may), to me deserves praise. To me it deserves a psychiatric examination. Oaths of willingness to die are not things to be made lightly, and if they are, they are essentially meaningless and the person who made them is not someone whose judgement should be trusted. And that's my problem with Sirius: by not knowing the person he was making the declaration about, he essentially rendered it a meaningless phrase. > Alla: > I agree, he obviously did not know Peter very well, but are you > saying that fact makes Sirius' gesture less worthy, whether Peter > deserved it or not? Yes, I am. Because Sirius should have put way more consideration into what kind of person Peter was. If he was telling the (rather tactless) truth when he said that they thought it would be perfect making Peter the SK because no one would have suspected such a "talentless weak" thing to be the SK, then he should also have known that "talentless weak" people can break under pressure. And let's remember: it's not primarily his own life he's gambling here, it's also the lives of James and Lily and Harry. If Sirius wanted to play dice with his own life, that's his business; but this was a bigger deal entirely. > Alla: > Sorry for being repetitive, but isn't the fact that Sirius is > willing to die for Peter contradicts your statement that it was " a > very unequal social arrangement between four dorm-mates"? I don't see how. It just means that he's willing to throw his life away very cheaply. > Alla: > I mean, sure friendship between Sirius and James was the closest, > but I don't think that one is willling to die for the person whom > they simply considered to be a tag- along. To me it is a strong > sign that Sirius considered Peter to be much more than that. They assumed that Peter would do what they wanted him to do because he always had in the past. That really is the only reason I can come up with for both James and Sirius managing to ignore the reality that was right in front of them for the better part of ten years. James paid for this mistake with his life and Sirius paid for it with just about everything he had. But it was a high price to pay. Magda ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 5 16:57:55 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 16:57:55 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Movie-related posts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139604 Greetings from Hexquarters! Please remember that discussion of the HP movies at the Main HPfGU list is not permitted, as per our posting guidelines: "Posts that discuss the movies should go to HPFGU-Movie, including posts that use the movies to make a point about the books or that use the movies as a jumping-off point for canon discussion." [Section 2.2 of the HFB] If you wish to post about the films, even if you are using them as support for a book-related point, please direct your post to the Movie list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie When unmoderated members submit off-topic posts, such as in movie- related threads, it is an especial frustration to moderated members who find their similar posts rejected by elves. We count on our longer-term members to serve as role models for newbies and thank you in advance for your assistance. Shorty Elf, for the HPfGU Admin Team From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Mon Sep 5 16:57:48 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 16:57:48 -0000 Subject: Sexy Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139605 vmonte: >Harry is damaged but in touch with his feelings--he's an honest >person. >Being gifted in Occlumency seems to be a gift for the worst kinds of >people--the people that can become Death Eaters. Might I remind you that we know Dumbledore was an excellent Occlumens, and we have canon to support speculations that Lupin was too... "An odd, closed expression appeared on his face..." Surely youre not suggesting DD and Lupin were Death Eaters? Heh heh...that would change interpretation of the Lighting Struck Tower at the end of HBP wouldnt it?? Elyse (who would love to learn Occlumency but doubts she would be any good at it) From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Sep 5 17:16:29 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 17:16:29 -0000 Subject: Killing tears the soul apart redux. WAS: Re: Snape's penance? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139606 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Why? Because any killing which I had read about in potterverse so > far was not justified yet. > > You name it - murder of Potters, Sirius death, death of twelve > muggles by Peter, murder of Amelia Bones, Evelyne Vance,etc, etc. > > In fact, if you could provide an evidence of ANY killing in > Potterverse, which was deemed OK by the narrator, I would be very > surprised. Pippin: Slughorn was willing to invite Neville into the Slug Club, though his parents are aurors and aurors are expected to kill in the line of duty, so I don't think his horror of killing extends as far as you think. I don't think he meant to equate all killing with murder. No one is worried by Harry's ambition to be an auror, either. I don't think we are supposed to believe that even a wizard who killed accidentally, or in the line of duty, or in self-defense, could make a horcrux, or the idea of them would not fill Slughorn and every other decent wizard with such horror. Peter had surrendered, he was begging for his life, and in such circumstances Moody would have brought him in alive, if we are to believe Sirius. What Sirius and Lupin were about to do was wrong, even by Sirius's own standards. It was thought wrong for the aurors to kill needlessly or using the Unforgivable curse( which, if Bella is corrrect, cannot be performed effectively in a righteous state of mind.) But I can't see that the narrator thinks Moody's soul is torn apart, that he owes some restitution for the killing he did, or that Harry could have made a horcrux if Snape hadn't shown up in time and Draco had bled to death despite Harry's horror at what he had done. It's true that Harry thought at the end of OOP that killing Voldemort would be murder, but at that point he thought he was going to have to do it because of the prophecy, not because Voldemort would never rest until he or Harry was dead and because Harry owed it to his parents to see that no more people met the same fate. Once Dumbledore had explained that properly, Harry felt much better about what he was being asked to do -- not dragging Voldemort into the arena, or being dragged by him, but both of them entering it because of the choices they'd made. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 17:24:53 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 17:24:53 -0000 Subject: Sirius' declaration of loyalty in the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: <20050905165927.7827.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139607 > > Alla: > > But if person thinks abous such declaration, it loses the sincerity > > and becomes calculation, no? Magda: > You're damn right it becomes calculation, one of the most important > calculations anyone can possibly make. If a declaration like the > above is tossed off without calculation or considering the > consequences, then the person making the declaration is pretty > stupid. Alla: But I am not talking about Sirius' declaration in restrospect. I am talking about what he said in the Shack, that is all. I am just talking about how that defines Sirius' character for me and to me it defines him into very positive light, noble light, if you may. After all, JKR did say that Sirius " for all his faults has this tremendous sense of honor". I would rather see the character die for his friends, even if those friends do not deserve it,which I am not sure about, then see the character doing the calculations and choosing his own life over the life of his friend, but that is just me of course > > Alla: > > Sorry for being repetitive, but isn't the fact that Sirius is > > willing to die for Peter contradicts your statement that it was " a > > very unequal social arrangement between four dorm-mates"? Magda: > I don't see how. It just means that he's willing to throw his life > away very cheaply. Alla: You were saying that Sirius did not consider Peter more than weak, talentless, whatever and even though Sirius may have considered him to be a weaker wizard, I am saying that one does not declare his willingness to die for your "dorm-mate", only for a friend. Magda: > They assumed that Peter would do what they wanted him to do because > he always had in the past. That really is the only reason I can come > up with for both James and Sirius managing to ignore the reality that > was right in front of them for the better part of ten years. James > paid for this mistake with his life and Sirius paid for it with just > about everything he had. But it was a high price to pay. Alla: But what kind of reality was in front of them? I still think that we have hints that their friendship was genuine and that Peter may have broke under pressure from Voldemort. Consider - in all most important moments of their life they were together, all four of them - creating the map, becoming an animagi, joining the Order. Do we have any signs that Peter was not participating in Map creation and animagi transformation just as equally as others? And we have ONE scene, ONE, which hints that Peter was a tag along. But going back to Sirius , even if they made a mistake, I feel that it speaks highly of them to make such mistake, not lower. Isn't it better to think higher of the person than such person deserves? Who knows, maybe one day such person decides to live up to his former friends expectations. JMO, Alla. From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Sep 5 17:46:05 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 17:46:05 -0000 Subject: Sexy Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139608 I think the distinction has to be made between attractiveness and sexiness. Attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder. Sexiness is a quality radiated by the object. Black as the crow. White as snow. Red as blood. (Deirdre's description of Naisi) And highly intelligent. Yes, I'm afraid I would find Snape attractive (grooming issues aside) if I were somehow transported into the story, but hopefully would have better sense than to act on it. As written, however, I don't think Snape is sexy in the least. He's too cold. None of the adults in HP* are sexy, IMO. In fact there is such an absence of adult sexuality in the books, that until HBP, with its delicate references to Merope's interesting condition, I wasn't sure that wizards reproduced in the ordinary mammalian fashion. houyhnhnm From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Mon Sep 5 17:54:10 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 17:54:10 -0000 Subject: Snape's Remorse vs. Snape's Worst Memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139609 > > Unless of course, Snape's tale of remorse is a whole lot of hooey. > Or his remorse was for Lily only, and he secretly danced a jig about > James' death. Or that, when titling chapters for OoP, no one > thought carefully about Snape's story line in HBP. > > Marianne > I think you just caught the golden snitch. I've , considering the somewhat eventful life he's led since. Nowhere in the chapter itself does JKR say anything about what Harry sees being Snape's worst memory, only that it was among the memories that he didn't want to share with Harry if the kid broke through his Occlumency. Which leads me to wonder (a) what else was in the Pensieve; (b) whether in an earlier draft, that other something--Snape's real worst memory--was what Harry saw; and (c) whether, having drastically altered the content of the chapter, JKR or JKR's editor or somebody failed to notice that the title needed changing. And finally, could that real worst memory that Harry saw in the earlier draft have been the event--the unwitting betrayal of the prophecy and its aftermath or whatever it was--that turned Snape back to the side of good? That would explain, to me at least, why JKR changed the content of the memory back to that vicious but generally innocuous school episode; the real thing could have seriously altered Harry's perception of Snape, Harry's relationship with Snape, and where the story as a whole was going. Not to mention being too heavy for young readers. --Gatta From law at phuked.co.uk Mon Sep 5 17:44:43 2005 From: law at phuked.co.uk (biggee_87) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 17:44:43 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harrys scar Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139610 I dont know whether anyone has mentioned this before but in Philosopher's Stone when Snape first looks at Harry, Harry's scar starts to hurt. "It happened very suddenly. The hook nosed teacher looked past Quirrell's turban straight into Harrys eyes - and a sharp, hot pain shot across the scar on harry's forehead." What puzzles me is, we know Snape was a DE, but so was Lucius Malfoy and Harry never had a pain upon meeting him, or any other DE, the only other person who makes it hurt is Voldermont. Like DD said scars can be very usefull. I want to believe that Snape is a good guy but after re-reading this I don't think that he is. Please let me know your ideas on this one.... biggee_87 From manawydan at ntlworld.com Mon Sep 5 18:28:06 2005 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 19:28:06 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Not so bad Snape (was Re: Sexy Snape?) References: <1125889578.2476.93374.m4@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <000c01c5b247$908fea20$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 139611 Juli wrote: >Yellow teeth: As someone said earlier, many many things can cause >the teeth to get yellowish: coffee, tea, cigarettes, fruits... > According to a dentist of my acquaintance (no, not named Grainger...) if you have childhood measles while your adult teeth are developing, they will be yellowish. Nothing to do with cleanliness or the lack of it. cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From maidne at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 18:30:51 2005 From: maidne at yahoo.com (maidne) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 18:30:51 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harrys scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139612 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "biggee_87" wrote: > I dont know whether anyone has mentioned this before but in Philosopher's Stone when > Snape first looks at Harry, Harry's scar starts to hurt. > > "It happened very suddenly. The hook nosed teacher looked past Quirrell's turban straight > into Harrys eyes - and a sharp, hot pain shot across the scar on harry's forehead." > > What puzzles me is, we know Snape was a DE, but so was Lucius Malfoy and Harry never had > a pain upon meeting him, or any other DE, the only other person who makes it hurt is > Voldermont. > > Like DD said scars can be very usefull. > > I want to believe that Snape is a good guy but after re-reading this I don't think that he is. > > Please let me know your ideas on this one.... > > > biggee_87 I always thought that the reason Harry's scar hurt there was because Voldemort was already under the turban and was staring at Harry at the same time Snape was. We just didn't know about V'mort being there at the time. Susan From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Sep 5 19:01:50 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 19:01:50 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harrys scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139613 biggee_87: > I dont know whether anyone has mentioned this > before but in Philosopher's Stone when Snape > first looks at Harry, Harry's scar starts to hurt. [...] houyhnhnm: This incident sets up Harry's distrust of Snape, as well as arrousing the reader's suspicions against Snape because we are supposed to believe that it is Snape who is after the Philosopher's Stone. However, nowhere else do we read of Harry's scar hurting in Snape's presence except during the Occlumency lessons, when Snape's use of Legilimency opens Harry's mind up to Voldemort. Neither do we read of Harry's scar hurting when he is around Quirrel. Therefore I suspect that Snape was Legilimencing Harry when he stared at him during the feast. Because Snape was sitting right next to QuirrelMort at the time, he opened Harry's mind to Voldemort. My question is what did Snape make of Harry's reaction (clapping his hand to his forehead). Did he note it? Could it have led him to suspect Voldemort's possession of Quirrel during the PS/SS school year, contrary to his assertion to Bellatrix? Or could it have advanced his own speculations about the connection between Harry and Voldemort and the nature of the scar? From iam.kemper at gmail.com Mon Sep 5 19:05:11 2005 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 12:05:11 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Killing tears the soul apart redux. WAS: Re: Snape's penance? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40509051205790ea739@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139614 On 9/3/05, dumbledore11214 wrote: > > > Well, first of all, I said several times that to me killing in self > defense is excusable. > > Secondly, I did provide the evidence, but you interpret them > differently. It is your right, but it does not mean that I have not > provided it. To me everything that had been said in HBP about Tom > Ruiddle screams that killing is not OK. > > > Does it mean that according to Potterverse rules any killing is not > OK? Yes, it seems very likely to me, not hundred percent likely, but > very likely. > > Why? Because any killing which I had read about in potterverse so > far > was not justified yet. ... In fact, if you could provide an evidence of ANY killing in > Potterverse, which was deemed OK by the narrator, I would be very > surprised. > > ... I can argue that there is no evidence in the books that > killing is OK. > > > And even though as I said earlier I would consider Harry killing > Vodelmort to be totally self-defense, I don't think that Harry will > kill him. Kemper now: Here is the evidence that the narrator argues (though 'suggests' would be a better word) that killing is okay. (OoP 844, US soft) ...Harry asked..."The end of the prophecy... it was something about ...'neither can live...'" "'...while the other survives,'" said Dumbledore. ..."so does that mean that ... that one of us has got to kill the other one... in the end?" "Yes, " said Dumbledore. Dumbledore, our sage, suggests (if not advocates) killing... at least, killing Voldemort. To add to the discussion... Is taking the life just physical? What about the victim's soul? Is destroying a soul evil? What about part of it? Dumbledore destroys Salazar's Ring that contained part (my guess is half) of his original soul given the Ring was the first Horcrux. Dumbledore destroys part of Tom Riddle's soul. Is Dumbledore wrong? He destroyed the Ring, but it wasn't in self-defense. Of course, it could be argued that it was a pre-emptive strike. Any thoughts? Kemper, Who believes that each time a Horcrux was made it cost Tom/Voldemort half his soul... so after the 1st he would have 1/2 of his original soul in him... 2nd would leave half of that or 1/4 of original... and so on until his 6th which leaves him 1/64 of original soul left in body. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 5 19:14:33 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 19:14:33 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139615 "Ceridwen" wrote: > That is moral relativism Is it moral relativism to think that words like, horrified, repulsed, appalled and disgusted are better used describing the torture of a child than an overdue library book? > he [Harry] can do whatever he pleases > and he will get a pass from you because > someone else did something worse I don't believe I said that. I believe I said some things are bad, some things are very bad, some things are naughty, and some things are not bad at all. > Dumbledore wasn't dead when Harry > used Sectumsempra and nearly > killed Draco Malfoy. Harry was defending himself from an unprovoked attack by somebody who was about to use an Unforgivable Curse on him. Although I have more sympathy for Draco than I have ever had before, yes, I'd have to give Harry a pass even it he had killed him. It was pure self defense. > Harry nearly killed at that point > while Snape was, by comparison, > lily-white. He saved Draco And I rather wish he hadn't, if Draco had died Dumbledore would have lived. As I say, I do have some compassion for Draco, but if I had to make a choice between him and Dumbledore it's no contest. eggplant From dc.thorburn at ntlworld.com Mon Sep 5 19:13:31 2005 From: dc.thorburn at ntlworld.com (Derek Thorburn) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 20:13:31 +0100 Subject: JKR's reply about Snape Message-ID: <00f001c5b24d$e8840800$3e781652@thorburn> No: HPFGUIDX 139616 I was most interested to read the post about the characters in the book and the comment to JKR's answer on Mugglenet. I read that interview just after I'd finished HBP. In essence, when asked about Snape's character, I felt she was saying, "Well, you've had the verdict - what more would you have"? I, personally had no doubts whatever when Snape answered Bellatrix's questions in Chapter 2. As soon as I read about what he had really done, his good intentions just fell to the ground. IMO, he is heart and soul on LV's side and the way he has treated both Harry and his other students is totally inexcusable. Derek From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Sep 5 19:26:13 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 19:26:13 -0000 Subject: Killing tears the soul apart redux. WAS: Re: Snape's penance? In-Reply-To: <700201d40509051205790ea739@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139617 Kemper: [...] > To add to the discussion... Is taking the life > just physical? What about the victim's soul? Is > destroying a soul evil? houyhnhnm: I'm glad someone brough this up. The conventional WW, which delicately refrains from killing the body with an AK (except for Crouch, Sr.), seems to have few qualms about sentencing someone to have their soul sucked out, often without the briefest nod to due process. We know Dumbledore does not concur, though, because of his many expressions of detestation for the dementors and his disapproval of the Ministry's alliance with such creatures. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 19:37:00 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 19:37:00 -0000 Subject: Grindelwald taught Tom about making Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139618 aussie: > I propose Grindelwald taught Tom about Horcruxes. If that is so, > wouldn't Grindelwald also have made a Horcrux or two? He could teach > what he knew. Personally, I don't see Grindelwald doing any such thing, *especially* if he made "one or two" horcruces himself. Take LV, for instance, would he teach any other aspiring overlord his know-how? Nope, he wouldn't. He would rather kill him (just in case) and make another horcrux. a_svirn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 19:38:07 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 19:38:07 -0000 Subject: numerous short replies, not all of them smart-ass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139619 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > Pippin wrote in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/138999 : > > << Jo has already said that Harry can't learn [Occlumency] -- he's > too damaged. >> > > I thought Jo said that Harry can't learn Occlumency because he isn't > damaged enough. ... > bboyminn: I think Harry has shown that he is capable of Occlumency. When his mind was being probed by Snape during the lessons, I always felt that Harry was just as curious as Snape about the memories that came cascading out which is why he continued to watch rather than shut them off. But whenever any memory came up that was embarassing or very personal he was able to cut the memory off immediately. True he may never be great at it, but he can do it. It was the circumstances that diminished his apparent ability and his belief in his ability, rather than his ability itself. > > Valky wrote in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139252 : > > << Day 1 Voldemort attacks GH Day 2 Sirius is put in Azkaban and > Harry is put in Privet Drive Day 3 or 4 The Longbottoms are attacked > and tortured by the Lestranges. >> > > ...edited,,, > > I don't think Day 3 or 4 is long enough for the Lestranges to have > been arrested and talked their way out of Azkaban. > bboyminn: I was going to correct this before but couldn't think of a way that had any length or depth, but since it has gone unchallenged for so long, I feel I must comment. The attack on the Longbottoms DID NOT occur on day 3 and/or 4. It occurred roughly A YEAR LATER just when people were starting to feel safe again. The time frame in the book isn't real specific, but it's clear that the attack on the Potters and the Longbottoms are separate events with a substantial gap between them. > > Lady Indigo wrote in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139309 : > > << I can't fathom how someone, even at the age of 16, even in a > world with advanced healing, could ever see something labelled 'for > enemies' and have their first urge be to use it and see what it > does. >> > > It kept seeming to me as if that book seduced Harry, kind of like > The Diary. ... maybe (the book) had some charm on it to magnetically > attract Harry, make him trust it and want to try out all its special > spells. ...edited... > bboyminn: I agree that Harry was seduced by the Potions book but only in the most general NON-magical terms. I personally don't think the book was enchanted, but how could Harry not be seduced by the intriguing book that gave him such a strong advantage as well as so much other apparently usefull information? While it is theoretically possible that the book was enchanted, from a realistic perspective JKR has already played that card, and for the most part, is not into repeating themes or plot devices. Just a couple of thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 22:21:40 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 22:21:40 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139620 Combined answer: Eggplant, Lady Indigo, Eggplant again. --- Eggplant wrote, in message 139528: "even if it was wrong to switch books it was certainly not VERY wrong, and we can tell the difference because we have seen things that are VERY wrong, like tying a 14 year old boy to a tombstone and torturing him so badly he wanted to die, or animating a corpse to kill for you, or making a child carve words into his hand, or murdering Dumbledore. Right or wrong if I were Harry I am certain I would feel I had earned that book, I would feel I deserved it. And if that's the worse thing he does in his life then he's a saint." Del replies: What's the use of separating the world into Saints and Demons? Of course what Harry did is much less wrong than what so many other people did, but so what? That doesn't change the fact (IMO) that it was wrong. With that kind of thinking, we could never condemn the petty thief who steal a few thousands bucks from the old lady, because of the CEO who stole millions. We could never condemn the little thug who beat up the kid in school who had crossed him, because of the mass murderer who killed dozens. In fact, we couldn't even condemn the mass murderer who killed dozens because of the tyrant who killed thousands! Completely pointless... --- Lady Indigo wrote, in message 139535: "The instructions aren't *lousy*. They create the potion they're supposed to create, just a weaker form of it or with some mild side effects." Del replies: I don't think that's even the problem. The instructions do create the potion all right, they are just not as *efficient*. To take a cooking example again: whipped cream. The book originally said: "take liquid cream, whip until the right consistency". The HBP added: "refrigerate the cream and the bowl for an hour beforehand, add a pinch of salt and use an electric mixer" (or whatever the current tricks to make whipped cream by hand are - I'm not a cook :-). By following the original instructions, you do indeed have a chance of making your own whipped cream, but it will require a lot of work and a dose of luck. Using the additional instructions will make it a lot easier. --- Eggplant wrote, in message 139540: "No, not entirely. Putting the blackest possible take on Harry actions, far blacker than I think is justified, I can't come up with a word stronger than "naughty" to descried it, but other members of this group have used words like horrified, repulsed, appalled and disgusted; words of that caliber I think should be reserved for things like tying a very nice 14 year old boy to a tombstone and torturing him so horribly he wants to die. That is horrifying repulsive appalling and disgusting." Del replies: I personally remember using the terms "pretty disgusted", and I have already explained that they quite adequately describe how I feel about Harry cheating. But I don't remember anyone using the words "horrified", "repulsed" or "appalled". Del From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Sep 5 20:17:50 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:17:50 -0000 Subject: Grindelwald taught Tom about making Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139621 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: aussie: > > I propose Grindelwald taught Tom about Horcruxes. If that is so, > > wouldn't Grindelwald also have made a Horcrux or two? He could teach > > what he knew. a_svirn: > Personally, I don't see Grindelwald doing any such thing, > *especially* if he made "one or two" horcruces himself. Take LV, for > instance, would he teach any other aspiring overlord his know-how? > Nope, he wouldn't. He would rather kill him (just in case) and make > another horcrux. Geoff: I would be inclined to agree because I believe canon points in that direction. '"Sir,I wondered what you know about... about Horcruxes?" Slughorn stared at him, his thick fingers absent-mindedly caressing the stem of his wine glass. "Project for Defence Against the Dark Arts, is it?" But Harry could tell that Slughorn knew perfectly well that this was not schoolwork. "Not exactly, sir," said Riddle. "I came across the term while reading and didn't fully understand it." "No... well... you'd be hard-pushed to find a book at Hogwarts that'll give you details on Horcruxes, Tom. That's very Dark stuff, very Dark indeed," said Slughorn. "But you obviously know all about them, sir? I mean, a wizard like you - sorry, I mean, if you can't tell me, obviously - so I just knew if anyone could tell me, you could - so I just thought I'd ask -"... ..."Well," said Slughorn, not looking at Riddle but fiddling with the ribbon on top of his box of crystallised pineapple,"well, it can't hurt to give you an overview, of course. Just so that you understand the term. A Horcrux is the word used for an object in which a person has concealed part of their soul." "I don't quite understand how that works, though, sir," said Riddle. His voice was carefully controlled but Harry could sense hise excitement. "well you split your soul, you see," said Slughorn, "and hide part of it in an object outside the body.".... ...But Riddle's hunger was now apparent; his expression was greedy, he could no longer hide his longing. "How do you split your soul?"' (HBP "Horcruxes" pp.464-465 UK edition) I read from Tom's reactions that although he has met the name, he knows very little about them and certainly hasn't received any inside information from Grindelwald or anyone else. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 5 21:00:10 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 21:00:10 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139622 "delwynmarch" wrote: > With that kind of thinking, we could > never condemn the petty thief who > steal a few thousands bucks from the > old lady, because of the CEO who > stole millions. If a petty crime gets more and more petty eventually you get to the point where it is so extraordinary petty it's just not worth bothering with anymore. Any prosecution would cause a judge to thunder "My court does not deal in trivialities!" I don't think Harry committed any crime, but if he did it was a very very very petty crime. > I personally remember using the terms > "pretty disgusted", and I have already > explained that they quite adequately > describe how I feel about Harry cheating. > But I don't remember anyone using the > words "horrified", "repulsed" or "appalled". In message 139471 on Sep 3 at 8:20 pm you said: "It might be strong language, but it describes what I feel about it. And if "pretty disgusted" is strong, then I wonder what you would think of horrified, revulsed, appalled, and such niceties." However if you've changed your mind I'll speak no more about it. Eggplant From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 21:30:37 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 14:30:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius' declaration of loyalty in the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050905213037.67784.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139623 > > Alla: > But I am not talking about Sirius' declaration in restrospect. > I am talking about what he said in the Shack, that is all. I have no idea what you're talking about here. Nothing has changed in the series since Sirius' declaration in the shack, therefore "in retrospect" is irrelevant. > Alla: > I am just talking about how that defines Sirius' character for me > and to me it > defines him into very positive light, noble light, if you may. I don't see why. > Alla: > After all, JKR did say that Sirius " for all his faults has this > tremendous sense of honor". I would rather see the character die > for > his friends, even if those friends do not deserve it,which I am not > sure about, then see the character doing the calculations and > choosing his own life over the life of his friend, but that is just > me of course Hold on - you're changing the rules. No one said anything about "choosing his own life over the life of his friend". That was never the situation in the series and it hasn't been discussed up to now. I really don't see how you came up with that. > Alla: > > You were saying that Sirius did not consider Peter more than weak, > talentless, whatever and even though Sirius may have considered him > to be a weaker wizard, I am saying that one does not declare his > willingness to die for your "dorm-mate", only for a friend. Well, I'm just going by what Sirius himself says in the shack about the logic behind making Peter the SK (which took place before Sirius realized Peter was a traitor). Unless you think Sirius is lying, I have no choice but to take him at his word. > Alla: > > I still think that we > have hints that their friendship was genuine and that Peter may > have broke under pressure from Voldemort. Well, I don't see it. Peter is not a conflicted character, he's pretty straight-forwardly out for himself and what he perceives to be his own interests. > Alla: > Consider - in all most important moments of their life they were > together, all four of them - creating the map, becoming an animagi, > joining the Order. Do we have any signs that Peter was not > participating in Map creation and animagi transformation just as > equally as others? Yes, we have Remus saying Peter needed all the help the others could give him. Since we know that Peter is not a weak wizard, we can assume that he was a lazy one who didn't put himself out much (remember how he tried to cheat during the exam?). > Alla: > And we have ONE scene, ONE, which hints that Peter was a tag along. Yes, and we have McGonagall's word for it in POA. > Alla: > But going back to Sirius , even if they made a mistake, I feel that > it speaks highly of them to make such mistake, not lower. Isn't it > better to think higher of the person than such person deserves? Not when it cost the lives of James and Lily and put Harry's life in danger. > Alla: > Who knows, maybe one day such person decides to live up to his > former friends expectations. Not unless he sees something in it for himself. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Mon Sep 5 22:36:31 2005 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 23:36:31 +0100 Subject: Hermione is the star - proof was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Academic dishonesty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <431CC86F.1090500@btopenworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139624 eggplant107 wrote: > > That's true, it is not proof Hermione doesn't understand why potions > work the way they do, but then again, we have never seen one shred of > evidence that she does understand why potions work the way they do. OK, I've found a canonical proof that Hermione understands the principles behind the potions. In the infamous "Trevor poisoning" lesson, she helps Neville to put his botched potion right. It's not following instructions - it's analysing the present wrong potion, understanding where Neville went wrong and *improvising* the way to fix that potion. I'm really happy to find this tidbit about Hermione. Irene From muellem at bc.edu Mon Sep 5 23:03:08 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 23:03:08 -0000 Subject: Hermione is the star - proof was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Academic dishonesty In-Reply-To: <431CC86F.1090500@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139625 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, IreneMikhlin wrote: > OK, I've found a canonical proof that Hermione understands the > principles behind the potions. > In the infamous "Trevor poisoning" lesson, she helps Neville to put his > botched potion right. It's not following instructions - it's analysing > the present wrong potion, understanding where Neville went wrong and > *improvising* the way to fix that potion. > > I'm really happy to find this tidbit about Hermione. > > Irene Hermoine also understands the principles of potions, as described when they have to break down a potion and find the antidote for the poison within it(HBP). She was able to break down the properties and separate them into 10 different catagories. I believe she was the only one in the class who really understood the properties and uses of the ingredients in potions. Harry won by using the bezoar, which was Snape's idea, but it doesn't work in all cases. colebiancardi (a chemist has to know the properties of their drugs, otherwise a person could die if they mixed the wrong type of drugs together) From juli17 at aol.com Mon Sep 5 23:24:33 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 19:24:33 EDT Subject: Snape's attack on Flitwick/Forgiveness Message-ID: <157.5842282a.304e2db1@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139626 bboyminn: I see the thread has run on quite long, but no one seems to have addressed this basic question head-on. I think Snape took Flitwick out of the game, by whatever means, because once he discovered there were Death Eaters in the castle, he knew he was in a very awkward situation. If he intended to fight the DE's without seeming to do so, he had to act alone. He couldn't have Flitwick tagging along behind him. This was a situation that require great stealth as well as great finesse. He had to either covertly fight the DE's, or he had to get them under control and get them out of the castle without compromising his position with either Voldemort or Dumbledore. So, again, he couldn't have Flitwich tagging along behind him. Julie: Er, this is just what I said! But only a post or two before yours, so you probably missed it (especially if you read digest like me). bboyminn: I really think it is as simple as that. Certainly, at that moment, his concern was for maintaining his cover, getting Draco out of trouble, and getting the DE's out of the castle. At that time, I don't think he knew what was in store for him when he met Dumbledore at the top of the tower. That was a spontaneous event. It's already clear to everyone that I don't think Snape and Dumbledore conspired in advance toward Dumbledore's death. Instead, I think, in a manner of speaking, they conspired on the spot, and Dumbledore make Snape aware that all was lost, and Snape took the opportunity to turn a bad situation to his advantage. Don't get the idea that I am completely excusing Snape. Even under the best possible outcome and the best possible circumstances, Snape killed Dumbledore, and he will have to pay some price for that. Although, I don't forsee that price being 'murder'. I see it more as manslaughter, though it may not be legally right, my point is that Snape will pay for his crime because there is no way to erase it. But I also think, that Snape will explain it away to the point where he won't be charge with the cold-blooded murder that it appears to be. Julie says: Why would Snape have to explain it away? If he killed Dumbledore for justifiable reasons, i.e., for a greater good, and, effectively speaking, with Dumbledore's permission, then it is what it is. Not cold-blooded murder, but something else, maybe manslaughter or even justifiable homicide. I do agree that Snape will pay though, if only by his own personal suffering over killing the one person who loved him and who he loved in return (as mentor/friend, fatherfigure/son, whatever). bboyminn: I think that was the foundation behind Snape chastising Harry for calling him a Coward. Snape did a very brave thing, at least in his eyes, in killing Dumbledore. He did what must be done to bring about Voldemort's ultimate defeat at some point in the indeterminate future. But to accomplish that future task, he has to do a terrible thing for which he can never escape punishment. His courage wasn't in killing Dumbledore. It was in being willing to commit a terrible crime, and in doing so, accept the punishment, knowing that his personal sacrifice would bring about an ultimate greater good. In a sense, Snape, and by his eventual punishment, is a casualty of war. Again, I'm not really defending Snape or saying he should be forgiven, but if we take the position that Dumbledore was already dying, and Snape simply worked that death to his advantage, then while we can never forgive him stealing one second of Dumbledore's life, we can at least understand the sacrifice they both made. Julie says: I doubt it matters to Snape if we forgive him ;-) What would matter is that Dumbledore forgives him, which I believe DD does by his own complicity. And also, though Snape doesn't recognize it yet, that Harry forgive him, because it is Harry who was most damaged by Snape's betrayal of his parents (unintentional as it might have been, and certainly a lesser sin than Peter's more direct betrayal and Voldemort's murdering them). And I know some people can't believe Snape would treat Harry so badly if what he really needs is Harry's forgiveness. But I can. Every time Snape looks at Harry, he sees not only the similarity to James, not only the uncomfortable sensation of looking into Lily's eyes, but a constant reminder of his complicity in the brutal murder of both. He must hate it, and resent Harry because of it, even while he assists Harry in various ways, either as part of his own penance, or because Dumbledore demands it. But he doesn't have to be nice about it, or so he figures, and so he isn't. Snape may figure it is his acts in assisting Harry to prepare and eventually defeat Voldemort (and in keeping Harry alive long enough to get to that point) which will earn him redemption. But I don't think it is. It's Harry choosing to forgive Snape his sins (not only for telling Voldemort about the prophecy, but also for taking all his resentment and pain out on Harry) that will allow Snape to not only earn his redemption, but to finally achieve a true measure of peace (which is nothing more or less than healing a damaged soul, I should think). Harry doesn't *have* forgive Snape, of course. He doesn't have to recognize Snape's acts of good--working with DD, saving Harry and his friends several times, helping Harry get rid of the Horcruxes (or whatever Snape may do in Book 7), etc--as suitable atonement for his numerous bad acts. But Harry will. Because he's the hero, and the hero takes the high road (forgiveness), not the low road (vengeance). That is, and will be in the end, the defining difference between Harry and Snape, who is not the villain, but the anti-hero (or failed hero) to Harry's hero. IMO, Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From MadameSSnape at aol.com Mon Sep 5 23:32:11 2005 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 19:32:11 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape and Harrys scar Message-ID: <208.8a5a3c3.304e2f7b@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139627 In a message dated 9/5/2005 2:02:13 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, law at phuked.co.uk writes: I dont know whether anyone has mentioned this before but in Philosopher's Stone when Snape first looks at Harry, Harry's scar starts to hurt. "It happened very suddenly. The hook nosed teacher looked past Quirrell's turban straight into Harrys eyes - and a sharp, hot pain shot across the scar on harry's forehead." What puzzles me is, we know Snape was a DE, but so was Lucius Malfoy and Harry never had a pain upon meeting him, or any other DE, the only other person who makes it hurt is Voldermont. Like DD said scars can be very usefull. I want to believe that Snape is a good guy but after re-reading this I don't think that he is. Please let me know your ideas on this one.... ---------------------------------------- Sherrie here: JKR has already dealt with this one. Harry's scar hurt because Snape was talking to Quirrel. As Snape was facing Harry, Quirrel had his BACK to Harry - i.e., Voldemort was facing Harry from the back of Quirrel's head. It was not Snape who made Harry's scar hurt - it was Voldemort. A connection which Harry seemingly has not made. Sherrie "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 juli17 at aol.com Tue Sep 6 00:21:18 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 20:21:18 EDT Subject: Snape's worst memory--more to come??? (oops, looong) Message-ID: <1df.432a8b9b.304e3afe@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139628 rtbthw_mom: I think it's overwhelmingly sad that Snape didn't have the decency to identify with Harry when he saw all the sad memories in Harry's mind during the Occlumency sessions. Perhaps this is what Dumbledore hoped would happen: Snape would, once and for all, realize that Harry really wasn't the spoiled brat that Snape always characterized James as being. Harry had the same sort of childhood that it seems Severus had, and there should at least be some sympathy there between the two of them, just has Harry felt when he viewed Snape's "worst memory." Thanks for listening! Julie says: I think that might have started to happen, when Snape asked about the dog, and then refrained from saying anything further about Harry's memories. At least in the early parts of Occlumency Snape was treating Harry *better* than he usually did, even to the point of backhandedly complimenting him. Had Harry actually tried to learn Occlumency, and, more importantly, if he hadn't snooped into Snape's memories in the Pensieve, who knows if Snape's attitude might have changed a bit. It was Harry who blew that chance (yes, Snape is the adult, but that doesn't mean Harry is blameless). Just as Harry had little opportunity to apologize about snooping in the Pensieve because Snape went off the deep end, so Snape had little opportunity to build up a true sympathy of Harry's similar childhood or to finally recognize Harry as someone other than a carbon copy of James, because Harry was busy ignoring the Occlumency lessons and later sticking his nose--er, entire head, that is--where it didn't belong. (And that second action probably undid any small sympathy Snape might have already built for Harry.) Gatta wrote: .......... Nowhere in the chapter itself does JKR say anything about what Harry sees being Snape's worst memory, only that it was among the memories that he didn't want to share with Harry if the kid broke through his Occlumency. Which leads me to wonder (a) what else was in the Pensieve; (b) whether in an earlier draft, that other something--Snape's real worst memory--was what Harry saw; and (c) whether, having drastically altered the content of the chapter, JKR or JKR's editor or somebody failed to notice that the title needed changing. And finally, could that real worst memory that Harry saw in the earlier draft have been the event--the unwitting betrayal of the prophecy and its aftermath or whatever it was--that turned Snape back to the side of good? That would explain, to me at least, why JKR changed the content of the memory back to that vicious but generally innocuous school episode; the real thing could have seriously altered Harry's perception of Snape, Harry's relationship with Snape, and where the story as a whole was going. Not to mention being too heavy for young readers. Julie says: I too am very curious about those other two memories Snape put in the pensieve. I'd like to hope we'll find out about them, though JKR JKR may have no intention of revealing them if they add nothing further to the plot. Still, it would be an interesting way for Harry to discover the *real* Snape, wouldn't it? If Snape left those memories behind (perhaps unintentionally) and Harry somehow found a way (and a motivation) to access them in the pensieve, this could be the manner by which the exact extent of Snape's culpability in the Potter murders (as well as other aspects of his character) is revealed. Consider, we have three memories. In the first, we see Lily defend Snape, Snape call her a "mudblood" perhaps in wounded pride, and Lily in her surprise at the slur insulting him back. And what if there was more to memory #1, something Harry never got a chance to see because he was interrupted? A look passing between them afterward, or a hurried apology by Snape (in a lame, half-assed manner perhaps, but it might be enough for Lily). Or regret shown by Snape, who may have driven away one of the few who would treat him as a friend. Or even *deeper* anger at James, who Snape might see as one who caused him to insult Lily by putting him in such an undignified position? (It wouldn't be unusual for a teenager, let along a teenaged Snape, to lay blame elsewhere for his own failings--we've seen it in HP before). What if it was deep enough anger that this incident became a pivotal one that led to Snape's ultimate decision to join the Death Eaters? (And Lily ending up with James might have just sealed it!) Harry views his parents deaths and everything else that has happened since as all flowing from Snape's decision to tell Voldemort about the prophecy, even though it wasn't Snape who took subsequent action. Might Snape view his slur of Lily, loss of her friendship, and decision to join the Death Eaters as flowing from James' torment of him on that particular day, even though it was Snape who took those subsequent actions? But what about Snape's memory #2? It may not be a bad memory, just one Harry mustn't see (one that, as Gatta says, might give away the ultimate plot). If Harry does eventually access this memory, it will probably be one that reveals more of Snape. And it might be the very one that shows why Snape really left Voldemort and came over to Dumbledore's side. Whether it involves friendship or love for Lily, which would certainly be bangy for Harry (unpleasantly so, no doubt!), or based on something else we haven't learned yet, it would be a memory Snape (and Dumbledore) wouldn't want Harry to see. We know this from the several times Dumbledore has refused to tell Harry why he trusts Snape. Since I don't have a definite theory for memory #2, let's move on to #3. I think #3 is Godric's Hollow. I don't know if Snape was actually there while Voldemort killed James and Lily, but I tend to think not, as I can't see him (as DD'sMan!Snape) standing by while they are killed. Snape is many unpleasant things, but he's not a coward in the sense of preserving his own life at all costs (non-Slytherinish, I know, but Snape's always diverged from that particular Slytherin trait). Instead, I think Snape may have been nearby, hunting for Voldemort, hoping to stop him, but unable to locate Godric's Hollow as he is not the secret-keeper (and hasn't been told the location, as Voldy was). But as soon as the Potters are dead, and Voldemort is transformed into Vapormort, the secret disintigrates (or whatever). Godric's Hollow becomes accessible, and Snape goes there, perhaps right after Peter has transferred what's left of Voldy out of the burning house. Snape finds the dead James (and perhaps feels a brief twinge of remorse mixed with anger--he did warn the stupid man after all), then Lily (which engenders a much deeper sense of remorse, and perhaps more anger at James, who could have saved her if he'd only listened to Snape). And he finds the squalling boy-child, Harry, whom he takes with him from the burning house, either to Spinner's End, or to some other location where he perhaps gives him some potion, charms him, takes some oath to protect him, or whatever, in the presence of Dumbledore, and maybe Hagrid. In the end Hagrid takes Harry, (or Dumbledore takes him to Hagrid), Dumbledore goes to Privet Drive, and Snape goes back to Hogwarts. But something is set in motion, something that ties Snape and Harry together from this moment, right on through their years together at Hogwarts, and beyond. This would mean Snape had a hand in saving Harry's life much earlier than we even knew, and has continued interfere in that manner with somewhat tedious regularity--damn, no wonder he resents that kid! ;-) Much as Harry may hate finding this out, Snape is smack in the middle of everything to do with Harry's life, and has been since Day 1. Good, bad, indifferent--and Snape is a mysterious mix of it all--Snape isn't going away. Those two will deal with each other again, and it may be those unknown memories Harry *didn't* see in the Pensieve that will set the tone for their final confrontation, or resolution, whichever it may be. Julie (who hopes this post that suddenly evolved without her intent--but with her complicity of course--actually makes some sense!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From law at phuked.co.uk Mon Sep 5 19:20:28 2005 From: law at phuked.co.uk (biggee_87) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 19:20:28 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harrys scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139629 >> houyhnhnm: > My question is what did Snape make of Harry's reaction (clapping his > hand to his forehead). Did he note it? Could it have led him to > suspect Voldemort's possession of Quirrel during the PS/SS school > year, contrary to his assertion to Bellatrix? Or could it have > advanced his own speculations about the connection between Harry and > Voldemort and the nature of the scar? Yes that is a very interesting point, it seems the deeper we delve the more we realise what a talented wizard Snape truly is. And in my opinion, yes Snape would have noted Harrys reaction. It seems that Snape probably knows Harry as well as DD did, he certainly know of most of Harrys powers, and if he is ESE (which I truly hope he isnt) he could be quite a match for Harry. He knows his weaknesses ie his friends, his temper, and would know doubt be a valuable asset to voldemort. Biggee87 From carodave92 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 19:56:42 2005 From: carodave92 at yahoo.com (carodave92) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 19:56:42 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harrys scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139630 Susan adds: > I always thought that the reason Harry's scar hurt there was because > Voldemort was already under the turban and was staring at Harry at > the same time Snape was. We just didn't know about V'mort being > there at the time. > Now Carodave: I agree with Susan, just one of those odd coincidences, repeated during Harry's detention in OotP when Dolores Umbridge touched him and his scar seared with pain, later determined to be a reflection of LV's intense emotion at the time. Carodave From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Sep 6 00:59:10 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 00:59:10 -0000 Subject: Grindelwald taught Tom about making Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139631 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hagrid" wrote: > Tom Riddle made the diary Horcrux in about 1942 or 1943 ... is that > correct? So where did that 16 year old learn how to make Horcruxes? > He didn't learn that in Hogwarts. > > I propose Grindelwald taught Tom about Horcruxes. If that is so, > wouldn't Grindelwald also have made a Horcrux or two? He could teach > what he knew. > > Now, JKR has said Grindelwald was defeated, but in her latest > interview, there was a lot of unanswered questions about that Dark > Wizard. > > I have some more ideas about him ... without making this TOO long, > let the discussion begin and see if we have similar theories. > -aussie- Valky: I have done some thinking about Grindelwald and Tom, myself, but I come to a different conclusion. The first question in my mind is are there any connections between Grindelwald and Tom Riddle. Grindelwald was defeated by Dumbledore within a couple of years of Tom finishing his schooling. This would place Grindelwald in charge of chaos and darkness in the WW while Tom was at school, and it places Tom's curiosity about Horcruxes within the few years before Grindelwalds defeat. IMO, there are two very possible sources from which Tom might have come across Horcruxes. The first is the Chamber of Secrets, and the second is Grindelwald. Clearly neither of these sources explained anything about Horcruxes as Tom bothered to ask Slughorn for information. OTOH this source or both sources gave Tom enough information to know that he could divide himself into pieces to achieve immortality. I believe we know this because in Sluggy's memory Tom has already decided to ask about making himself into seven, and the info he gets from Sluggy that appears to be news to Tom are the details of placing pieces of soul in objects, and killing to break off the piece of soul. So going with what I deduce would be the information tht Tom had on Horcruxes before he asked Slughorn about it: 1. The name of Horcruxes 2. That creating them is a means of pursuing immortality 3. That it involves dividing the wizard into more than one piece. I am leaning toward thinking that all of this information could have been gleaned from a single sentence. ie That Wizard has a Horcrux, another piece of himself hidden somewhere, so he is immortal. This could very easily have been a rumour about Grindelwald, or it could even as easily have been something rumoured about Salzar Slytherin, or the sentence could be divided among the two wizards leaving Tom with enough information to put the pieces together. I don't know that we have quite enough backstory - or at least not backstory that I have investigated thoroughly enough - to know which of these three it was. But in any case I think Grindelwald is a terrific guess and a good place to start looking for the predecessor of Horcruxed!Voldemort. I think that Grindelwald is a good place to start because it brings Dumbledore into the equation. The only one Tom ever feared. By commutating the timeframe which can place Toms fear of DD in the arena of his defeat of Grindelwald, I think we can postulate that we are looking at the same operator. I mean that the reason Tom fears DD is because he defeated Grindelwald. Toms is most afraid of dying, above all things, and with all his experiments he knows that to kill him one must destroy his Horcruxes. Associatively, therefore, Tom would fear very much someone who can destroy Horcruxes (the operator) because destruction of Horcruxes and death are the same thing to Voldemort. To take the algebraic language out of all I have just said (which I used mostly for my own benefit but I will leave in for the mathheads among us). Toms fear of Dumbledore goes back to his childhood, were he saw, among other things, Dumbledore defeating Grindelwald. Tom saw Dumbledore manage a lot of things and, of them, defeating the Dark Wizard was not the least, so if we shuffle it to the front of the list of things Dumbledore did that scared Tom, where it could equally belong, it looks the same as Voldemort being afraid that Dumbledore can destroy an immortal Wizard. Leaving us with only one thing left to find - What made Grindelwald immortal. We only have canon on one method of pursuing immortality so let's call it that, Horcruxes. Hence Dumbledore's prescence in the mix makes it very likely that Grindelwald had a Horcrux. And we establish grounds for a further step into speculating how Grindelwald was involved, if at all, in Toms plans. Personally I think it is likely that Tom did seek out Grindelwald to find the secret of creating a Horcrux. But I do doubt that he actually learned first hand from Grindelwald how it was done. I think he may have learned more about the mechanics of it in the Chamber of Secrets, from Salazar. And possibly experimented with it before he even knew what it was, producing the Diary. Now I have rambled at length bout my thoughts, Aussie, I'd like to hear yours. :D Valky From sherriola at earthlink.net Tue Sep 6 01:01:24 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 18:01:24 -0700 Subject: looks determining character Message-ID: <001001c5b27e$8287d2d0$ea3d79a5@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 139632 Several times, people have commented that if Snape turns out to be evil, it would be a terrible lesson to kids, in essence saying, yes, if it looks ugly it is bad. i confess this has mystified me for a while, so I had to sit and think about it a bit. Most people on this list probably know by now that I am blind. I've been that way since I was five, and though I have some visual memories, they are all tangible things. I don't remember any faces at all. I can't feel your face and tell you what you look like--all I could tell is if someone has round cheeks, a big nose, eyes large or close together, things like that. But that wouldn't put them together in my mind to tell me whether that person is pretty or ugly. and I don't care. So, the visual descriptions in the series haven't registered much on me, unless it's something tied to something else. such as, Harry's hair is messy and black like his father's, and his eyes are green like his mother's. Even so, if it wasn't for the connection to his parents and the number of times it's been repeated, I'd have completely tuned it out. The only other descriptions I really remember are that Hermione has bushy hair, and all the Weasleys have red hair. Dumbledore has a long beard, and Hagrid is nearly twice the size of a normal man. I can't even really remember what Sirius or Lupin look like. So, i haven't judged the characters on their looks. Whew, ok, a long prelude to my point. I think that those who fear the ugly description of Snape then him being evil could send a bad message to children might be forgetting that the big baddie is supposed to be handsome and charming. Isn't the young Tom riddle described as handsome? Didn't he have a way of charming everyone around him, except for Dumbledore? I remember that, because I felt kind of squeamish at the descriptions of his charm and good looks. It seems to me, that if Snape is evil, we have a baddie who is not attractive, but in Voldemort, we also have a baddie who is very attractive. Or at least, he was before he made his transformation. In fact, other than the impression we are given that the young Sirius and James are attractive, is any good guy character presented as particularly stunning? i know there's been talk about Ginny being beautiful, but is she? I don't even remember that at all. I do realize that sighted kids might have more focus and interest in the physical appearance of a character, but I still don't think the objection in regard to Snape works, since we have Voldemort/Riddle as our handsome big bad guy. The kids I know who've read the books and dislike Snape, dislike him because of his meanness to Harry and Neville. They've never mentioned his sallow skin or greasy hair. Just a thought I had on reading the recent "sexy Snape" posts. sherry \ From carodave92 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 20:17:52 2005 From: carodave92 at yahoo.com (carodave92) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:17:52 -0000 Subject: Sirius' declaration of loyalty in the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: <20050905165927.7827.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139633 > > Alla: > > I agree, he obviously did not know Peter very well, but are you > > saying that fact makes Sirius' gesture less worthy, whether Peter > > deserved it or not? > Magda:> Yes, I am. Because Sirius should have put way more consideration > into what kind of person Peter was. If he was telling the (rather > tactless) truth when he said that they thought it would be perfect > making Peter the SK because no one would have suspected such a > "talentless weak" thing to be the SK, then he should also have known > that "talentless weak" people can break under pressure. > > And let's remember: it's not primarily his own life he's gambling > here, it's also the lives of James and Lily and Harry. If Sirius > wanted to play dice with his own life, that's his business; but this > was a bigger deal entirely. > > > Now Carodave: This is the essence of everything we know about Sirius - he has a big heart but is rash and acts on his feelings without always stopping to consider the consequences. This is exactly how he was erroneously caught as the murderer of James and Lily - had he alerted the authorities instead of going after Peter on his own, we would have had a different book. Harry is almost killed (twice) when Sirius, as Padfoot, shows up just to see him, with no thought to how frightening he may appear to a boy. And of course, this is how Sirius is AKd by Cousin Bella at the MoM, when he was supposed to be cooling his heels in Grimmauld PLace. Sirius acts out of love. He has an immense capacity for loyalty. He is quick to act, and relishes action. However, he does not stop to analyze. Sirius *would* have died before betraying his friend Peter. Had he stopped to examine Peter's character (or lack thereof) more closely, maybe he would have realized that Peter (the rat!) did not have the heart and bravery required to reciprocate. However, it wasn't stupidity - just Sirius being rash. And don't forget that no matter what Sirius takes responsibility for out of guilt, James and Lily ultimately made the decision to use Peter as their Secret Keeper. By any description, they are both bright and have Harry's best interests at heart. Carodave, who sincerely hopes all her snipping didn't offend the authors, or the post elves! From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 6 01:15:45 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 01:15:45 -0000 Subject: Sirius' declaration of loyalty in the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: <20050905213037.67784.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139634 > > > > Alla: > > But I am not talking about Sirius' declaration in restrospect. > > I am talking about what he said in the Shack, that is all. Magda: > I have no idea what you're talking about here. Nothing has changed > in the series since Sirius' declaration in the shack, therefore "in > retrospect" is irrelevant. Alla: OK, I am confused again. I am just saying that Sirius' wilingness to sacrifice his life for Peter is expressed AFTER Godric Hollow murder is occurred, therefore all we can judge here is Sirius' intentions. Am I making any sense? As far as we know, we only heard Sirius' intentions being expressed here. What happened at Godric Hollow, already happened. Sirius says it twelve years later. > > > Alla: > > I am just talking about how that defines Sirius' character for me > > and to me it > > defines him into very positive light, noble light, if you may. Magda: > I don't see why. Alla: Because I consider willingness to sacrifice oneself for the friend to be the wonderful quality of one's character, that is why. > Magda: > Hold on - you're changing the rules. No one said anything about > "choosing his own life over the life of his friend". That was never > the situation in the series and it hasn't been discussed up to now. > I really don't see how you came up with that. Alla: Oh, that was just my little imaginary hypothetical, or maybe more than imaginary, but never mind that :-) That was indeed just a side speculation. Magda: > Well, I'm just going by what Sirius himself says in the shack about > the logic behind making Peter the SK (which took place before Sirius > realized Peter was a traitor). Unless you think Sirius is lying, I > have no choice but to take him at his word. Alla: No, I don't think Sirius is lying, on the contrary, I believe that Sirius had been proven truthful several times during the series, so I don't think he is lying. BUT I don't think that one contradicts each other. I think it is perfectly possible that Sirius thought that Peter was weaker wizard than him academically( that was certainly a mistake) AND at the same kind liked him as a person. > > Alla: > > Who knows, maybe one day such person decides to live up to his > > former friends expectations. Magda: > Not unless he sees something in it for himself. Alla: Could be, but JKR did mention that Peter's life debt will be important, so maybe Peter will pay life debt, even if it won't bring him immediate benefit. Oh, I just want to add to make myself absolutely clear that despite the fact that I sympathise with Sirius' character a lot, I really could care less as to whether Peter would achieve redemption or not, honestly. BUT after HBP, I believe that Peter became much likelier candidate for redemption storyline, if there is to be any, than Snape. It is just how I read the text. Of course I am prepared to eat a nice crow, as always :-) Carodave: Sirius *would* have died before betraying his friend Peter. Had he stopped to examine Peter's character (or lack thereof) more closely, maybe he would have realized that Peter (the rat!) did not have the heart and bravery required to reciprocate. However, it wasn't stupidity - just Sirius being rash. Alla: Yes, it is possible, but all that I am saying that regardless of whether Peter had the heart and bravery required to reciprocate, Sirius willingness to die speaks highly of him, Sirius " sense of honor" per speaks highly of him, that is all. I am NOT even talking about practical reciprocation of Sirius intentions and going back to his declaration in the Shack, I am saying that it was essential in order for us to understand the heart of this character, that is all. JMO of course, Alla From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Tue Sep 6 01:49:04 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 01:49:04 -0000 Subject: OFH!Snape scenario (Long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139635 Saraquel: Back from a spell in the real world, trying to catch up on posts, but familiar with current discussion at least. I usually find the irresistible force meets immovable object debates over Snape quite daunting. I have been like the proverbial bouncing ferret, finding the arguments for both sides so convincing. I think it's been appealing to my Libran rising sign - wonderful idea, but on the other hand Until finally, I thought that I really must make the effort to get off the fence as regards Snape. So I've been doing some thinking and although I am as virtually 100% sure as one can be (forgive the grammar, you get the gist), that there will be a Redeemed!Snape in book 7, how we get there is not all that clear. I haven't really seen an OFH!Snape scenario spelt out on the list, so what follows is me trying to work through a OFH!Snape scenario, it may well have glaring holes ? please feel free to pick at them:-) First, a little character analysis, which focuses on an area that I haven't seen highlighted for its own sake: the world that Snape wants to live in, policitcally, in order to fulfil his dream. Contrary to some people, I do not think Snape wants to become the Ruler of the World, I think he likes the solitary life too much ? his books (When I read the chapter that described his house, I just thought, how many houses have I been in like that, friends not into money, but loving knowledge) his study and his creative inventiveness. Witness his first speeches to Harry's class about both potions and DADA. This is an academic, a man appreciative of and in love with knowledge. In my mind he is a research wizard, and perhaps before becoming a teacher, he worked in the Department of Mysteries ? I think the Room of Brains would have been his bag, he likes things pickled in jars, and he is fascinated by the power of logical and reasoned thought (The potions puzzle in PS.). Further to that idea, what Snape loves is the Power of Knowledge. I think that he is a morally ambivalent man. Like Voldemort, it is not good and bad that is important to him, but power. The power that lies behind actions, just as electricity lies behind so much of our world. To me, Snape is interested in which side can wield the most power. Is power harnessed to good a victor over power harnessed to evil? I think, probably up until PoA, he has an almost detached interest in (I don't mean he is emotionally detached), and academic view of the contest. But he has practical experience of living on both sides, and he has come to appreciate the advantages of being under DD's wing. His life has been one of better quality and freedom than it was with the DEs. As a young man, he perceived the apparent power of evil over good, but now he is watching, to learn the power of good over evil. In his past he has appreciated the power and beauty of the dark arts (that may seem an odd word, but the subtley of the dark arts also have their own dark beauty, and Snape can appreciate that.) He needs that past in order, in the future, to be able to choose. The more powerful and seductive the `evil' past is, the more powerful the choice for `good' in the present. What is Snape's dream? To research both the DA and DADA. This to me is his raison d'etre in life ? to investigate the Power of Truth as it manifests in knowledge and to learn to be at one with it, to use it. I think, as an academic, Snape knows that this power is greater than him ? IMO he does not seek to master it, as Voldemort does, but to serve it. What is his boggart ? I think something along the lines of finding out that he has chosen the "wrong side". I don't just mean that literally, in terms of Voldemort vs DD, but that he has not understood deeply enough and is backing the wrong theory. He is not afraid because of anything that might happen to him, Snape, as he points out to Harry, is not a coward, but because he desperately needs to Know the Truth. Imagine the devastation of an academic who has spent his whole life researching and believing something which is subsequently proven false. Where Voldemort and Snape differ is that Snape does not think he has the world taped, like Voldemort. Snape glories in the mystery of the world and its unravelling. Voldemort is trapped by his viewpoint and insistence on maintaining his world view at all costs. Snape has a mind which is always open, and that is one reason why he's so going to get redeemed. (If JKR doesn't redeem him, I'm so going to throw a wobbly and spit the dummy, before I marvel at how she has finished her story.) So, to summarise, IMO, what Snape wanted/probably still wants, most of all, is a world where he can be as inventive and creative as he wants in both the dark arts and Defence against the dark arts and GET RESPECT for it. Who he sides with, depends on who can give him this most effectively. There is a big chunk of Snape story missing between the discovery of the prophecy and Godric's Hollow. Was he involved in the cave? (In my reckoning he's the only character (maybe Lily or James) who had the ability to overcome the obstacles in the cave, I don't believe RAB did it alone and I'm not convinced about Kreacher. I think he's a strong contender, but I'm not fixed on that.) What exactly was his reason for going to DD? Was it real remorse? Was it just an act to get him in as a spy? For whatever unfathomed reason in my intuition, I don't think Snape is either, a willingly reformed character or still a secret DE. I suspect that he is, for the first 5 books, unwillingly with DD. If DD would let him research DA and DADA, he would be happy, but that dearest of dreams is denied him. I think that something in the story forced him into DDs arms, and that was not LVs order to spy, but I'm not at all convinced that, given a chance for a dark arts world, he wouldn't jump at it (sorry double negative there). Essentially, to me, Snape is torn between his preference for DDs `democratic' (for want of a better word) world over LVs autocracy and his desire for the mysteries of the dark arts. He has no allegiance to Voldemort (though the exact reason why IMO still remains a mystery). Ok, let's go for a year by year analysis here (This post relies on some previous posts in this list and some posts in another. Wave to everyone on whose back I stand, and particularly Valky.) Year 1: I think it perfectly possible that Snape is not sure about Voldemort's death. He may at this point still think that the prophecy has been fulfilled, in which case his immediate interest is in the power that did it. However, the break-in at Gringott's has put everyone on their guard. Bearing this in mind, he is waiting for Potter to arrive at school, because, as he said in Spinners End, he wonders if Potter will be the one to take up Voldemort's baton and provide him with the world he wants and the job he wants, or alternatively/or as well as fulfil the terms of the prophecy. Remember, DD has offered him a lot, but he has denied him his dream of researching DA and DADA. If it turns out to be true that Harry Potter is a Voldemort in waiting, he's struck gold. He is his teacher and has a chance to mould and influence him. Then he would be in the position of a Machiavelli to Medici, something he knows very well how to do and I think, Snape would prefer to be Machiavelli rather than Medici. Now let's get Harry to school and the all important Sorting. Harry is sorted into Gryffindor - almost definitive proof for Snape, that Harry is not going to be what Snape had hoped. Harry is in his father's house, looks like his father and will almost certainly be like his father. Snape's heart is in his boots. Because of his life debt to James, he is now probably bound to protect his `enemy'. At this point, he starts to hate Harry for being his burden and not his liberator. No wonder, that during the feast that follows this happens. UK ed PS p94 "The hook-nosed teacher looked past Quirrell's turban straight into Harry's eyes ? and a sharp, hot pain shot across the scar on Harry's forehead. The pain had gone as quickly as it had come. Harder to shake off was the feeling Harry had got from the teacher's look ? a feeling that he didn't like Harry at all." The pain in his scar was Quirrellmort, but the look straight into his eyes was IMO, legilimens Snape, trying to establish just what was in Harry's head and why he was sorted into Gryffindor. Snape grills Harry in their first potions lesson, and finds, to his twisted satisfaction, that Harry doesn't have a clue. Definitely not a promising start for Snape's hopes, they are now in all probability dashed forever. As you said Valky, "The Potter boy is as mediocre a wizard as ever his father was, he cannot even defend against Quirrel's chanted curse." So Snape, is still secretly holding out for a dark side victory as his only chance. But I think he is pulled in two directions, if he can get what he wants from DD, he'll take it, otherwise, Voldemort could still be a possibility. He is playing a delicately balanced game. If Voldemort is in the mix somewhere, as the attempt on the PS might imply, if his powers were damaged by the Godric's Hollow incident, is there still a chance that his old followers could govern in his name. If so, in Snape's opinion, Quirrel would not be the one to do it, yes Snape would see Quirrel as unworthy, as he tells Bella and Cissi. But Lucius Malfoy might just swing it. Now this is the perfect ending for Snape ? it will give him the world he wants. A weakened Voldemort, who is unable to personally enforce his cruelty (which he is quite happy to do on his followers as well as his enemies), but whose name still brings people to their knees and from whom Snape can still learn about the dark arts. With the real power in the hands of the man who Snape has been b nosing for quite some time, and who will give him anything he wants ? Lucius Malfoy. Yes, Snape will be back in the Department of Mysteries at the snap of Malfoy's fingers. Back with the big boys, head of his own little new department of research into the Dark Arts, on the cutting edge of knowledge and away from the tedium of incompetent and dunderheaded young minds. Now onto CoS. At the beginning of CoS, Snape is delighted at what seems to be a heaven sent opportunity to get Harry expelled. As I see it, he wants to prevent Harry from getting an education which would prepare him to defeat Voldemort. In a weakened state, as I'm sure Snape thinks Voldemort is, Snape thinks there is a possibility that Voldemort would be unable to defeat Harry. So by stopping Harry from being able to defeat Voldemort, Snape still has a chance of getting what he wants and keeping the prophecy unfulfilled. That Lucius and Snape had a relationship this early ? it is only confirmed in OotP ? is unknown, but I think a case to say that they did is fairly easy to put together. I won't go into detail, but the fact that Snape starts off with a noted preference for Malfoy is a good indicator. According to DD, Lucius did not know the diary was a Horcrux, but knew that it had the power to open the Chamber of Secrets, then if Snape knew anything about it, that is what he would know. If Snape was in on the plot, which I think highly likely, then Lucius would have told him who had the diary, and a truly reformed Snape would have arranged for it to have been "regrettably" found. Regrettably, because with Voldemort known to be still on the loose, DD would want Snape in a position to spy if he ever came back. What is the purpose of the diary for Snape ? not to rid the school of `mudbloods', but to rid it of DD and give Snape an opportunity to get to where he wants to be, at the moment ? DADA teacher. Admittedly there is the problem of the curse and whether Snape knew about it. I'm not taking that one into account here and it could be the downfall of this scenario, but you could argue that it would only be temporary anyway, until he could get back to the Dept of Mysteries. We also have the incident at the duelling club. I think Harry's ability to speak parseltongue was of great interest to Snape. CoS p146 "Snape stepped forward, waved is wand and the snake vanished in a small puff of black smoke. Snape, too, was looking at Harry in an unexpected way: it was a shrewd and calculating look, and Harry didn't like it." Well now that's very interesting, thinks Snape, maybe all hope is not lost. Maybe this boy does have possibilities after all. Interestingly, Snape is not present at the denouement of CoS and therefore cannot make the connections that DD makes about the difference between a memory and a horcrux. I've nothing really to say about Snape in the third book, it is more concerned with unveiling his connections to the Marauders. However, in book 4 things really begin to hot up for Snape. He knows Voldemort's power is returning. This is not a scenario he wants, but as the year progresses, Voldemort's ownership of him becomes increasingly visible. For the first time, Snape is facing choices between sides here. The dark mark is steadily revealing increasing power, Voldemort is not the weakened object he had been hoping for. Having spent a long time with Voldemort, I think Snape knows he cannot defeat a fully functional, re-empowered Dark Lord. He's good, but he's not that good. DD approaches him to discuss whether he would be willing to be a spy in the event of Voldemort returning to full power. Snape is faced with having to work out how to stay alive here. If he doesn't go back to Voldemort, he's dead for sure ? hunted down as a deserter. When pestered by Karkaroff, he doesn't want to discuss it. Karkaroff is all for deserting, Snape can't let him know what he is thinking, because of the danger of Karkaroff being captured and tortured. For the first time Snape has a taste of what being a double agent is really going to mean, and he is distressed. Everyone wants to know where he stands, DD, Crouch!Moody, Karkaroff ? the pressure is on. There is a discussion going on at the moment re occlumency and Snape and Crouch!Moody. >Vivian wrote in >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139183 : << We know that Snape has used Legimency on people before-- Fake!Moody on the stairs, >> >Catlady: >This confuses me. How could Snape have used Legilimency on Fake! >Moody without noticing that he was fake? Surely one's self-identity >is present in one's mind all one's waking time, like a background >noise? >Vmonte quoted >"Meaning what?" Snape turned again to look at Moody, his hands still >outstretched, inches from Harry's chest. >"Meaning that Dumbledore's very interested to know who's got it in >for that boy!" said Moody, limping nearer still to the foot of the >stairs. "And so am I, Snape...very interested..." The torch-light >flickered across his mangled face, so that the scars, and the chunk >missing from his nose, looked deeper and darker than ever. Snape was >looking down at Moody, and Harry couldn't see the expression on his >face. For a moment, nobody moved or said anything. Then Snape slowly >lowered his hands. >"I merely thought," said Snape, in a voice of forced calm, "that if >Potter was wandering around after hours again...it's an unfortunate >habit of his...he should be stopped. For--his own safety." >"Ah, I see," said Moody softly. "Got Potter's best interests at >heart, have you?" >There was a pause. Snape and Moody were still staring at each other. >Mrs. Norris gave a loud meow, still peering around Filch's legs, >looking for the source of Harry's bubble-bath smell. >"I think I will go back to bed, "Snape said curtly. >"Best idea you've had all night," said Moody. (p473-474, GoF) This is interesting. We could say that there is a possibility that Snape rumbles Crouch!Moody's disguise at this point. But he is still undecided as to what he should do, so opts for keeping up the loyalty to DD side of the story. If, as I am speculating, Snape feels he is being pulled and pushed by all around him, he would want to try and fulfil all possibilities, and keep everyone guessing. Perhaps Snape looks so intently in the foe glass at the end of GoF, to find out whether Crouch!Moody rumbled *his* plan. By the look of it, the foe glass showed him as an enemy. Of course there has been a lot of discussion before about what the foe glass shows ? your perceived enemies, or your actual enemies. However, I think it can pan out as an out for himself Snape, with a foot in both camps, keeping both sides sweet. Snape is frightened and distressed, but by the time DD sends him back to Voldemort, Snape has come to terms with the situation and prepared his story, like a good academic that he is, he has made his `theory' as watertight as he can before publication. OotP In Snape terms, this is a turning point. The book opens with Snape re-established in Voldemort's camp, glorying in the attention from the Order, but careful not to mix too much ? he never hangs around or stays for dinner ? and I don't think this is just to protect his cover with Voldemort. He is also, still well in with Lucius Malfoy. Then DD gives him the task of giving Harry occlumency lessons, and the incident which Valky so expertly pinpointed, arises. I needn't say much to add to her wonderful insight, just that, for the first time Snape really sees that there is something very powerful going on in Harry, and it's not dark. It's powerful enough to conquer the dark art of legilimency ? one of Voldemort's most special powers. Maybe there is something to the prophecy after all, maybe this kid Harry does have real power, maybe there is a chance that he could conquer Voldemort. Oh yes, he's very interested, and he wants to learn more. He wants to know just how much power there is in this sort of magic ? is there enough? Perhaps for the first time his interest in the side of good is not just about personal freedoms, it's about his most treasured thing ? Knowledge. >From this point on, Snape is being pulled very strongly over to the good side. If it has real power, and something to offer in terms of knowledge, then it will be worth being in that world. But there is still the deep imprint of his past influencing his actions. His past is a history of survival, he has been in extreme danger, but he has survived. The importance of his past experience cannot be overstated. So the final battle for Snape's soul begins. HBP Snape is still not convinced. He needs to keep proving himself with Voldemort until he can be sure he is making the right choice. He gives Voldemort, Emeline Vance. Then DD comes to him with his hand after destroying the Horcrux!Ring. (There's a whole diversion I could go on here, about how much Snape knows about Horcurxes but that's not for this post.) Suffice to say, I think Snape knows that Voldemort had made a Horcrux, and guesses that DD has destroyed one. Here is more proof of the ability of DD's side to triumph over Voldemort's. Snape is beginning to be convinced. Then just when he's being won over, bang, he falls for Narcissa's vow. He doesn't tell DD about the last part. OK, Not to make this too long as the year goes on Snape makes his decision. This is extremely important for him. He is desperate, caught in a web of his own making, and he is going to come down on DDs side. He wants out of the danger now, and goes to DD and asks to be extricated from Voldemort's camp, it is no longer beneficial for him personally to be with the other side. But when he asks, DD says no and they have the row in the forest. DD wants Snape to find out a lot more about Nagini for him. The investigation in his own house is not Slytherin (which is added as an explanation by Hagrid and reflects his own interpretation, IMO), but Spinners End, where Pettigrew is currently in residence. Snape is angry and resentful and frightened, just when he has decided to go for the good side, DD has let him down, big time. He probably feels betrayed by DD. Now he needs to know more about Harry's power and how to use it. Then Harry hands him a gift ? he uses dark magic again on Malfoy, and Snape now has the golden opportunity to investigate further. No expulsion this time ? Harry is valuable. (Thank you Valky) To cut to the end ? when Snape arrives on the tower, he sees his hopes in ruins. DD is going to die, whether he kills him or not. With DDs death, Snape sees the collapse of the good side. Whatever power Harry has it is not enough in Snape's eyes to carry the day. He feels betrayed by DD, for letting himself be caught like this. Snape knows the consequence of his vow and knows that he is going to have to kill DD. He does it with hatred, because he had finally decided to back DD and then DD `betrayed' the faith Snape had in him. Now, his decision has been made for him, and he is going back to Voldemort. He does it with revulsion, because it is not what he actually wants to do at that moment but he knows that now he must embrace his dark side again, sitting ready and waiting inside him. Book 7 speculation Both Harry and Snape are in need of some realisation. Harry's thirst for vengeance is tying him to the past, and his anger is leading in dangerous directions ? he has tried to use the crucio curse 3 times now, once on Bellatrix and twice on Snape. If he is going to be able to choose the all important right action over the easy action he is going to have to deal with this ? I wrote about this in my choices post ages ago. Harry has to learn big time, to have faith in love and I think that he will learn about the events at Godric's Hollow, and see for himself the power of love demonstrated by his mother. He may also find out something about Snape which will help him ? I don't know, but Snape's greasy nose seems to get into everything. When he next meets Snape he is going to be absolutely torn between hatred and understanding, and IMO, it is this meeting which will enable him to prepare himself for his meeting with Voldemort. Now for Snape. I think JKR deliberately showed us a Snape capable of killing DD in cold blood, and I wonder if we are actually going to find any mitigating circumstances for that. In my version, we see an absolutely unredeemed Snape, but, someone who is open to redemption, because his mind is open to the Truth. Someone who is able to be open to the power of love. Snape may make an excellent occlumens. But hiding your feelings is not saying that you do not have them. In fact, if you feel compelled to hide them, and are practised at that, then you have been given reason to do it, usually because you have been threatened. The power of hidden feelings dammed up behind a wall for most of your life should not be underestimated. Once love breaks the dam, expect the outrush to be spectacular and life changing. At that moment, when Last Judgement Love hits you, you have a choice. Go with it, abandon yourself to it and allow it to change you, like an alchemical process, and emerge purified. Or, resist it, hold onto your limited beliefs, and perish with them. I don't think that there is a third option. I think that Snape belongs to the former category, whereas Voldemort, is absolutely in the latter category. This why IMO Vldemort is for eternal damnation and Snape is for redemption. To me, if Snape is already redeemed, but was forced by some agreement with Dumbledore to kill him, then all that is involved in Harry and Snape's next meeting is a plot twist. JKR, just has to manufacture an opportunity for them to converse and for Snape to explain. If Harry is convinced, all we have seen is that Harry got it wrong again. However, if Snape is at the moment, unredeemed, then something more substantial is going to have to happen at their next meeting. This would give JKR the opportunity to have Harry choose love over vengeance and for Snape to choose redemption. This would provide a bigger bang factor ? but hey, I don't know what JKR has in mind here :-) So, if I'm right, it seems to me that the plot of the book has been set up for Snape to have realisation and repentance at the same time that Harry has realisation and forgiveness. I am wondering if in fact Harry saves Snape from something ? yes I did mean it that way round, I think the return favour will come later. If Harry does learn something at Godric's Hollow that gives him some insight on Snape and the power of love, as shown through Lily's sacrifice. And he realises what is the right choice over the easy choice. His attitude to Snape will change, but he will then be isolated from the other members of the Order, who now distrust Snape. So our hero will be alone in this action. Through Harry's action of saving Snape, Snape will realise the power of love that DD was talking about, but Snape never saw for himself. When he sees it, he will realise why Harry is special and go through his own process of realisation. So if you have stayed with me this far, thank you for your consideration and what do you think? Now that I've got all that down, I feel somewhat relieved of a burden. Saraquel Who ponders what JKR has in mind when Harry reminds us in HBP, that somewhere DD had said to him evil is never really destroyed, the battle goes on and you have to keep on fighting it. Anyone know the cannon reference ? I'll have to go and look for it again, myself. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 22:14:55 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:14:55 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139636 Eggplant wrote: "If a petty crime gets more and more petty eventually you get to the point where it is so extraordinary petty it's just not worth bothering with anymore." Del replies: Absolutely not true in most judicial systems, thankfully. Very petty crimes are being tried every day, simply because they are crimes. While a serial killer is being tried in one court room, a petty thief is being tried in another one. Even people who just drove through a red light are not given a pass simply because there are more horrible crimes being committed and tried out there. Eggplant wrote: "Any prosecution would cause a judge to thunder "My court does not deal in trivialities!" I don't think Harry committed any crime, but if he did it was a very very very petty crime." Del replies: First, cheating isn't a crime. Second, just because there are many many things that are more wrong than cheating, doesn't mean that cheating can't be considered wrong anymore. If I had two sons, and one killed a classmate while the other only cheated on his exams, I wouldn't punish them the same way, of course, but I wouldn't give a pass to the cheater either under the pretense that "what you did isn't anywhere as bad as what your brother did, so let's just forget about it". What is wrong is wrong. Third, considering the stance of moral relativism that you are taking, I fail to see how you can condemn Snape so strongly, considering that his one murder isn't anywhere as bad as what LV and some of his other DEs did... Del From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Sep 6 02:13:40 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 02:13:40 -0000 Subject: Sirius' declaration of loyalty in the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: <20050905133537.61171.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139637 Magda: > If you find someone in this world in your lifetime who you would die > for and who would die for you, congratulations, you are extremely > fortunate. Most people are not strong enough for such drastic > commitments, and the history books are full of incidents of people > betraying their loved ones because of fear for themselves. Sirius > had one such person in his life: James. > > What I am objecting to is the over-the-topness of a declaration like > "you should have died for us like we would have died for you". If > you're going to make that kind of statement about anyone, you'd > better have thought long and hard about that person, seriously > considered their weak points, their flaws, their blind spots, > everything about that person that might cause them to let you down > in the worst possible way at the worst possible time. Not just > because you slept in the same dorm for seven years, gave each other > dumb nicknames and did pranks together. Valky: I am not understanding you obviously, because by that very reasoning Harry is a fool to do most of the things he does. Harry almost died protecting the stone in PS/SS, and he would have died too if not for Dumbledore, for the sake of a world of perfect strangers. He was perfectly willing to, thats where he was coming from in lying there with his hands clutching Quirrels face while the strain of holding and Quirrels throttling very nearly killed him. He didn't let go or think for his own life, and that is why he believed Sirius and felt those words from Sirius in his heart. This guy wuld die for my Dad, for his friends? Hey I would do that! I'd consider that the best thing I had ever done. What I am saying is Harry understands it because he is the same. It makes no sense to him to figure out first if your life is worth more than the other persons, to Harry all life is worthy. Worrying about details like who you're sacrificing for and why, is just deciding who to kill, who you're going to let die. Saying you'd rather die than hand someone else over in your stead is just the same as saying that you don't want anyone to die, given the choice of dying or handing over a friend you fight both on your own terms, if you die then you die but *you* didn't kill anyone. The way I see it Sirius is saying that he'd go out fighting for any friend, and James would do the same. Maybe its just all about what Sirius thinks dying is. What you say above, doesn't fit into a framework of how I think Sirius would percieve his own death. In what you say I think your meaning is that death is something that you're helpless against when it comes to take you, but I don't think Sirius ever saw death this way. Sirius was into struggling for his life, danger and risk. I think Sirius always saw himself fighting to the last, fending off death til it took him, if it could. He was brave and energetic, as far as he was concerned he wouldn't go out easily so when his time came he'd be battling like a hero in its face, and if it was in the name of his friends all the better. Thats what I think he is saying in the Shrieking Shack. Rather than think long and hard about why he was dying, I think Sirius thought long and hard about how he would die. Valky From djklaugh at comcast.net Tue Sep 6 03:26:58 2005 From: djklaugh at comcast.net (Deb) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 03:26:58 -0000 Subject: Sexy Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139638 (Snip > Elyse rolls up her sleeves, takes a deep breath and plunges in: > The man has a presence. (Snip) Deb adds: And he is a presence about the school. Usually the first one on hand when ever a student is in trouble, or there are odd goings on in the middle of the night. >Elyse: > There is also the fact that Snape demonstrates great expertise in > Potions, creating the Wolfsbane Potion > and Veritaserum, both of which are rare and difficult mixtures. (Snip) Deb adds: It has always seemed to me that the way he would have proven to Dumbledore that he was sincere in his remorse about telling LV of the prophacy - go to DD's office with a vial of Veritaserum and tell DD that he *must* use Legilemens to verify what Snape is telling him. I think Snape would have opened his mind and his emotions and his memories to DD in order to show him the "truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" under conditions that DD could not refute. >Elyse: > He is an exteremely powerful wizard. (snip) Deb adds: IMO Snape is as powerful a wizard as DD in his prime and probably as powerful as LV. In book 7 I hope Hermione gets a chance to have go at all those "books, most of them bound in old black or brown leather" that cover the walls of Snape's sitting room at Spinner's End. Bet there is a wealth of information there about potions, Dark Arts, Defences against Dark Arts, etc. >Elyse: >We have been told any number of times that he is a superb Occlumens (Snip) Deb adds: An Occulmens of Snape's stature would be able to hide just about anything he wants... for a while any way. My hunch is that he is lying to LV and the DEs because he spends less time with them. I think that Occulmency takes a great deal of concentration and focus... I would suspect that it would be very difficult to maintain that level of concealment for extended periods of time. It makes more sense to me that he spent the 13+ years between LV becomeing Vapomort and LV reappearing in the graveyard being able to relax and not worry that DD would "catch" him in a lie.... he'd already bared his soul and his psyche to DD so he had nothing left to hide. Where as, if as I suspect, he is "Dumbledore's man through and through", he would have a lot to hide from LV! (Snip) >Elyse: > We know he was intelligent in school. (Snip) > He always has an "unfathomable" expression on his face. (Snip) Deb adds: The word "inscrutable" comes to mind.... he usually has a great poker face... one can not generally read his true emotions just by looking at his facial expression >Elyse: > When asked for an opinion, he gives the naked brutal truth. (Snip) Deb adds: I think his nastiness may also stem from the fact that he will be Legilemensed by LV when ever he goes back into LV's presence. In order to maintain the facade that he is a "loyal" DE he must never, ever, ever have any hint of positive emotions toward Harry lurking within his memory. LV being the paranoid person he is, would instantly suspect that Snape was a double agent if he caught a whiff of anything other than contempt for Harry.... and for Harry's friends. As for his teaching abilities.... well he also taught Fred and George, makers some pretty incredible potions/concoctions themselves - I'd be they were in NEWTs Potions before they left Hogwarts. He taught Bill, Charlie, and Percy Weasley... each of whom got 10-12 OWLS. He taught the Ravenclaws in NEWTs Potions with Harry as well as Ernie McMillan (and none of them needed a "loaner" potions book so apparently they all got "O"s on their Potion OWL.) >Elyse: > Last but not least, the fact that he is a double agent speaks for > itself no matter which side he is on. In the ESG!Snape scenario, > lets not forget that he went to Voldemort, one hour late, to > possile, even probable death, without so much as a tremor. > "You know what I must ask you to do. If you are ready . . . if > you are prepared ..." > > "I am," he says. > > This shows "pure nerve and outstanding courage". > Alongwith this bravery, remember he has successfully walked a > tightrope between both sides for a few years now. I am sure it > called for > resourcefulness, quick thinking, sharp observation skills, > Oscar-worthy acting, fast decision making abilities, remaining calm > in a crisis,complete inner confidence, sureness of purpose. > > To sum up, here is a man, with skillful expertise and a passion for > Potions (and DADA). An extremely competent, amazingly powerful > wizard, possibly the greatest Occlumens the world has ever seen. > A paragon of self control, intelligent and creative, with a brutal > honesty. His incredible courage of course is beyond question. > > I hate to use your own quote against you but: > JKR:However, everyone should keep their eye on Snape, I'll just say > that because > there is *more to him* than meets the eye...... > > Elyse Oh, I am in agreement with you Elyse! I think you have outlined the key points of the real Snape very well, IMO. I would also add that he is a very accomplished healer as well as Potions master, DADA expert, Occulmens Par excellente, and very accomplished Legilemens also. He heals Draco after the Sectumsempra and he stabilizes Katie Bell after the necklace gets her. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Sep 6 03:31:51 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 03:31:51 -0000 Subject: OFH!Snape scenario (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139639 Saraquel: > Then DD gives him the task of giving Harry occlumency lessons, and > the incident which Valky so expertly pinpointed, arises. I needn't > say much to add to her wonderful insight, just that, for the first > time Snape really sees that there is something very powerful going > on in Harry, and it's not dark. It's powerful enough to conquer the > dark art of legilimency ? one of Voldemort's most special powers. > Maybe there is something to the prophecy after all, maybe this kid > Harry does have real power, maybe there is a chance that he could > conquer Voldemort. Oh yes, he's very interested, and he wants to > learn more. He wants to know just how much power there is in this > sort of magic ? is there enough? Perhaps for the first time his > interest in the side of good is not just about personal freedoms, > it's about his most treasured thing ? Knowledge. > > From this point on, Snape is being pulled very strongly over to the > good side. If it has real power, and something to offer in terms of > knowledge, then it will be worth being in that world. But there is > still the deep imprint of his past influencing his actions. His > past is a history of survival, he has been in extreme danger, but he > has survived. The importance of his past experience cannot be > overstated. > > So the final battle for Snape's soul begins. Ceridwen: I enjoyed your book-by-book rendition of OFH!Snape. I just wanted to speculate about this part here, though, if you don't mind. In HBP, Dumbledore sends a knowing Harry to retrieve the correct memory from Slughorn. He also uses an unknowing Harry in the beginning of HBP, to convince Slughorn that he needs to return to Hogwarts. I am now wondering if these are the first two uses Dumbledore has for Manipulative!Harry, for lack of what's got to be a much better name. When Dumbledore threw Snape and Harry together for Occulemncy lessons in OotP, and he finds that it doesn't work, he says something about having hoped that Snape could have gotten over his dislike of James, or something along those lines. A failure on Dumbledore's part, because, as someone else on this list has said, he doesn't see the human factors involved. In fact, someone on this list also went through the Occlumency lessons and mentioned that it was wholly possible that Snape could somehow come to a meeting place with Harry through seeing their similar pasts. Just as Harry seeing Snape's memory of the Marauders tormenting him made him feel bad for Snape, until the roaches started flying... This is really giving me ideas, anyway. I'm wondering, now, if Dumbledore hadn't been using Harry in 'the battle for Snape's soul' at that point, use the boy to show the man that there is more common ground between them than he thinks. Legilimency, used in teaching Occlumency, would certainly reveal memories to Snape. And, it did. He even asked about the dog. As has already been mentioned, and I'm sorry I don't remember who, that may have been a Snapish way of acknolwedging the similarity. And, I'm wondering now, and this is completely out of canon and spur of the moment, if Dumbledore hadn't specified which memories to place in the Pensieve, knowing Harry's inability to control his curiosity. There may be diversions during the course of the lessons to remove Snape from the room (there were two, Trelawney's sacking and Montague's return, did Dumbledore anticipate them? Or just something? Or merely hope something would happen, based on knowledge gained from managing a school full of rambunctious fledgling magicals?). If Snape leaves, Harry would, if he follows his past pattern, stick his head into the Pensieve and see the Marauders tormenting Snape. Anyway, could Dumbledore have been trying to use Harry on Snape in the same way he used him on Slughorn? While I don't believe in a fully Manipulative!Dumbledore, he is managing a war effort and has troops beneath him, he has to manipulate to some extent to bring his plans to fruition. And having two powerful wizards wholeheartedly in his camp would be an asset. Just wondering. Your post has made me think. Ceridwen. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Sep 6 03:56:58 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 03:56:58 -0000 Subject: either must die at the hand of the other, Contradiction or Clue? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139640 Something that has had my attention since my first read of HBP, is the line from the prophecy that says either must die at the hand of the other. The reason this bothers me is because Dumbledore claims that he and Harry have both destroyed a piece of Voldemorts soul each, or at least he seems to. And I question, how can Voldemort die at the hands of two people? It contradicts the prophecy. Unless the hands of Harry and Dumbledore are some how connected in an alternating either/other fashion as Voldemort/Harry, or Dumbledore has not killed Voldemort's Ring piece of soul, or both, there is no way that either must die at the hand of the other fits Dumbledores story in its simplest sense. According to the prophecy, as far as I feel I can ascertain, Voldemort can not die in a random haphazard manner where anyone can have a go at his scattered bits, he must die by the hand of *the other* of the *either*. I thought I had it scooped earlier in the game but Jo shot me down with confirmation of the Diary Horcrux piece of soul having been entirely destroyed in COS. So I have gone back to the drawing board since then to take another stab at it. So far I have a framework that looks like this. Either can mean simply Harry or Voldemort, but Voldemort is in seven peices, so either can also mean either of each of his seven pieces. Assuming either refers to each of LV's seven pieces then they can only die by the hand of the other. The other could be just Harry, or could be another Horcrux, or again it could be both if Harry is a Horcrux. Dumbledore can only kill Voldemorts ring piece of soul, therefore, if he was one of either Harry or a Horcrux. For anyone who can understand what I have just said, if you notice an error, please correct me. While I wait for corrections and comments I will just go on with some of the speculative ground I have covered based on this. One theory is that Dumbledore became Voldemorts Horcrux, through destroying the ring, and then *allowed* Voldemort to kill him via the DADA curse - hence one piece of Voldemort kills the other, and either/other is satisfied. Another theory is that it all *has* happened by Harry's hand, and that is why DD got Harry to force feed him the potion which eventually was the thing that killed him. Snape was simply asked to push him off the tower, I cant figure out why though. OK, there are some of dark places that the prophecy has lead me into after HBP, now I think I will put up my umbrella and await the showers of rotten tomatoes. Valky From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Sep 6 03:59:44 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 03:59:44 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139641 "delwynmarch" wrote: > Absolutely not true in most judicial > systems, thankfully. Very petty crimes > are being tried every day Ok I concede the point, trivial lawsuits are indeed very common and are clogging up the judicial system as a result. So far we don't have full criminal jury trials for littering or overtime parking or overdue library books but that may be coming. > First, cheating isn't a crime. Second, > just because there are many many things > that are more wrong than cheating, > doesn't mean that cheating can't be > considered wrong anymore. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I don't think Harry committed a crime, I don't think he cheated, I don't think he was shady in any way whatsoever, but I know you feel somewhat differently. But from the above it seems there is one thing we can agree on, it's that compared to the other momentous events happening to Harry and the wizard world, Harry's use of that book just isn't very important from a moral viewpoint be it right or wrong. > Third, considering the stance of moral > relativism that you are taking Is that the stance I'm taking? I thought my stance was life is short so don't sweat the small stuff. I just think obsession over trivialities is unhealthy. > I fail to see how you can condemn > Snape so strongly, considering that > his one murder isn't anywhere as bad > as what LV and some of his other DEs did. And I find it very very difficult to believe that you really do "fail to see" that. Eggplant From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Sep 6 04:06:26 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 04:06:26 -0000 Subject: Snape's attack on Flitwick/Forgiveness In-Reply-To: <157.5842282a.304e2db1@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139642 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at a... wrote: > > > bboyminn: > > ... > > I think Snape took Flitwick out of the game, ..., because once he > discovered there were Death Eaters in the castle, he knew ... If he > intended to fight the DE's without seeming to do so, he had to act > alone. He couldn't have Flitwick tagging along behind him. This was > a situation that require great stealth as well as great finesse. > > ... > > Julie: > Er, this is just what I said! But only a post or two before yours, > so you probably missed it (especially if you read digest like me). bboyminn: Sorry, didn't mean to steal your thunder. For now, let's just say I agree then. It's true I glanced at the earlier posts, but didn't read them in detail, and sort of jumped in at the point where this new sub-thread seemed to be spawned. > bboyminn: > ... I think, in a manner of speaking, they conspired on the spot, > and Dumbledore make Snape aware that all was lost, and Snape took > the opportunity to turn a bad situation to his advantage. > > ... But I also think, that Snape will explain it away to the point > where he won't be charge with the cold-blooded murder that it > appears to be. > > Julie says: > Why would Snape have to explain it away? If he killed Dumbledore > for justifiable reasons, i.e., for a greater good, and, effectively > speaking, with Dumbledore's permission, then it is what it is. > Not cold-blooded murder, but something else, maybe manslaughter > or even justifiable homicide. > > ... > bboyminn: You've caught me in a bad turn of a phrase. Perhaps Snape won't have to 'explain it away' but he will have to /explain it/. As far as the world knows at this point, Snape killing of Dumbledore was cold-blooded, ruthless, heartless murder. If my theory is true, Snape will be able to explain that it was not that at all but a sacrifice for the greater good. None the less, it doesn't change the fact that he killed Dumbledore, greater good or no greater good. Snape knows he can never fully be forgive for that act. There will be some price to pay, but perhaps the price will be low enough that he is still able to have some quality of life after Azkaban. Although, of course, that assumes that Snape lives, though I have always thought he would die heroicly helping Harry, but not before Harry understood what really happened, and therefore, forgave Snape. > bboyminn: > I think that was the foundation behind Snape chastising Harry for > calling him a Coward. Snape did a very brave thing, at least in his > eyes, in killing Dumbledore. ... In a sense, Snape, and by > his eventual punishment, is a casualty of war. > > ... while we can never forgive him stealing one second of > Dumbledore's life, we can at least understand the sacrifice they > both made. > > > Julie says: > I doubt it matters to Snape if we forgive him ;-) What would matter > is that Dumbledore forgives him, which I believe DD does by his own > complicity. And also, though Snape doesn't recognize it yet, that > Harry forgive him, because it is Harry who was most damaged by > Snape's betrayal of his parents (unintentional as it might have > been, and certainly a lesser sin than Peter's more direct betrayal > and Voldemort's murdering them). > > ...edited... > > That is, and will be in the end, the defining difference between > Harry and Snape, who is not the villain, but the anti-hero (or > failed hero) to Harry's hero. > > > IMO, > > Julie bboyminn: Sorry to have cut so much of your post. It was very clever and insightfull. I think you have clear and accurate hold on the nature of Snape. At least, I hope that your model is correct and that's how the story plays out. While Snape will never be nice, and while I will never like him as a person (not even a fictional one), I do admire him as a character and think his finest hour is yet to come. When Snape stands on death's door, it will not be the bullying of the father that he thinks about, but the forgiven and mercy of the son. Anyway, brilliant insight into Snape. Steve/bboyminn From rbeache at earthlink.net Tue Sep 6 01:17:14 2005 From: rbeache at earthlink.net (Rachel Ellington) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 21:17:14 -0400 Subject: Snape's Worst Memory References: <1125955843.5030.10087.m1@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <004701c5b280$b731a810$6701a8c0@IBME69E742C294> No: HPFGUIDX 139643 I believe that this is truly Snape's worst memory, not the B version of the chapter. I think we must all consider what torture life can be for a teenager and how confrontations and stife with others can completely color the rest of our lives when it occurs in these formative years. Perhaps this truly WAS Snape's worst memory- to be utterly humiliated by James Potter in front of his schoolmates. An adult's mistake in judgement may not provoke the same feeling of powerlessness and shame as a humiliating incident in the teenage years. Of course, that is assuming an ESG! Snape. Rachel [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jmrazo at hotmail.com Tue Sep 6 04:25:47 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 04:25:47 -0000 Subject: Sirius' declaration of loyalty in the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: <20050905133537.61171.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139644 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich > What I am objecting to is the over-the-topness of a declaration like > "you should have died for us like we would have died for you". If > you're going to make that kind of statement about anyone, you'd > better have thought long and hard about that person, seriously > considered their weak points, their flaws, their blind spots, > everything about that person that might cause them to let you down in > the worst possible way at the worst possible time. Not just because > you slept in the same dorm for seven years, gave each other dumb > nicknames and did pranks together. Brotherhood. Fraternity. Friendship. These are powerful concepts that have far more powerful hold over the male heart than you give credit for. I think you diminish the Marauders when you reduce them to just living together, giving each other stupid nicknames, and doing pranks. Soldiers form similar lifelong bonds in a matter of *months* thanks to boot camp. They do all the same things the marauders do together. To say that Sirius, James, Remus, and Peter couldn't have formed a bond that meant so much in seven years is just plain wrong. And it could have been further honed during the war after they graduated. Furthermore, remember what Sirius' form was. A dog. a greater example of living and breathing loyalty you will never see. Dogs don't judge. They don't weigh outcomes. They just give their loyalty and love without a second thought. Sirius was the same way. The other marauders were his family. Unhesitatingly giving his life for them was totally in character and deeply moving in my opinion. > Even if Peter wasn't a traitor - even if he was just the weakest > Marauder, "talentless" as Sirius puts it - then trusting him with > anyone's life was beyond stupid. A chain is only as strong as its > weakest link; you don't just give it one tug and think you've > evaluated the risks properly. I think you are wrong. With his animagus form, Peter could be virtually uncapturable. even if he isn't the greatest wizard, which I'm not sure the evidence bares out, his defensive and evasive abilities would be second to none. > One of the biggest myths of the series is the so-called "friendship" > between the four Marauders. There was one strong friendship (James > and Sirius), and one close compansionship (James and Sirius and Remus > - imagine Lee Jordan's friendship with Fred and George), and one > tag-along cheering section (Peter; I think McGonagall nailed his > status in the group perfectly). These were not four equals striding > shoulder-to-shoulder into the sunset; this was a very unequal social > arrangement between four dorm-mates. I would argue the exact opposite. While they weren't equals, I think there is enough evidence of a strong friendship to counter the one scene we see in the pensieve. We see the type of character you are talking about in Colin and Dennis creevy. Sure they are more harmless than Pettigrew but they are follower types attempting to orbit the BMOC. But Harry has never included them in any of his adventures. He doesn't use them to stroke his ego or get them to do things for him. Contrast that with Pettigrew and James. Pettigrew was brought in on the inner circle. They helped him become an animagus, his voice is on the marauders map, he runs in the woods with Remus alongside them. That is far too much work just to keep a person around to stroke the old ego. Men and especially teenage boys are far too self centered to devote that much attention to someone they don't like all that much. McG calls him a tag a long and a weak wizard but considering how little she knew about the Marauders private activities I am not giving her a whole lotta weight. I like her but she ain't exactly up to date when it comes to her students personal lives. Likewise Sirius and Remus are probably closer than you give them credit for. He and James went to a lot of trouble to provide companionship for their friend. The way we've seen them interact in OOTP and POA shows me that their friendship was probably pretty strong until the war and suspicion tore them apart. they certainly managed to get much of it back pretty quickly. > Yes, I am. Peter had no sincere feelings of friendship for any of > them. He wanted to tag along with the Big Men on Campus and he was > prepared to be humiliated as the price for this privilege. James and > Sirius missed it because they projected their own feelings onto > Peter. I don't know. I think there is some evidence that Peter had been tortured and broken by Voldemort. It will be interesting to see what happens in book seven. phoenixgod2000 From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Sep 6 04:30:13 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 04:30:13 -0000 Subject: Grindelwald taught Tom about making Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139645 Valky: > To take the algebraic language out of all I have just said (which I > used mostly for my own benefit but I will leave in for the > mathheads among us). Toms fear of Dumbledore goes back to his > childhood, were he saw, among other things, Dumbledore defeating > Grindelwald. > Tom saw Dumbledore manage a lot of things and, of them, defeating > the Dark Wizard was not the least, so if we shuffle it to the > front of the list of things Dumbledore did that scared Tom, where > it could equally belong, it looks the same as Voldemort being > afraid that Dumbledore can destroy an immortal Wizard. Jen: This is a good point, and thank you for giving it to us without the algebra ;). One or several things must have happened to turn Dumbledore into the "only one he ever feared" because at least up to age 16, text doesn't give us anything to show Riddle *feared* Dumbledore so much as avoided him. Eleven year-old Riddle expressed 'shock and rage' at the burning wardrobe, but no fear. He then went on to reject Dumbledore's offer of help in Diagon Alley, and more or less avoided him once he got to Hogwarts. Well, except he must have had Transfiguration with him and done well, given his status as an excellent student. Now, on to 16-year old Memory!Riddle. Tom sounded more annoyed than fearful of Dumbledore when he told Harry: "Well, he certainly kept an annoyingly close watch on me after Hagrid was expelled," said Riddle carelessly..." (chap. 17, p. 312, Scholastic). Carelessly. Not something that bothered Riddle, to have Dumbledore watching him, except he was unable to open the Chamber again. When Voldemort visited Hogwarts seeking the DADA job, he appeared to want to treat Dumbledore as an equal, but DD subtly reminded him "I am watching you." Dumbledore was very careful to call Voldemort by his hated, common name of Tom, and to mention the Death Eaters waiting at the Hog's Head. Then Dumbledore struck another blow--"I have friends watching you as well" with his off-hand comment about being friendly with the bartender at HH. All of this was a successful power play on Dumbledore's part: "Not only am I here to remind you that at least one person in the world remembers you are really Tom Riddle, but I am also following your every move and will be watching you just like I did at Hogwarts." Now, if Voldemort wasn't fearful up to that point, he must have started to wonder--how much does Dumbledore *know*? Valky: > Leaving us with only one thing left to find - What made Grindelwald > immortal. We only have canon on one method of pursuing immortality > solet's call it that, Horcruxes. > > Hence Dumbledore's prescence in the mix makes it very likely that > Grindelwald had a Horcrux. And we establish grounds for a further > step into speculating how Grindelwald was involved, if at all, in > Toms plans. Jen: I feel almost 100% sure Dumbledore was referring to Grindelwald when he made the statement: "As far as I know--as far, I am sure, as Voldemort knew--no wizard had ever done more than tear his soul in two." (Chap. 23, p. 500 Scholastic). Then we have the fact DD banned information about Horcruxes, too. The present-day student population doesn't seem to be discussing why Voldemort returned from vapor. No mention of Horcruxes, or a run on the restricted secion to figure this out! There must have been a reason Horcruxes were specifically banned during that time period. Like Valky said, maybe there was an awareness of why Grindelwald was difficult to defeat, or perhaps Tom himself started the discussion of Horcruxes among friends, but either way, Dumbledore attempted to nip it in the bud. Valky: > Personally I think it is likely that Tom did seek out Grindelwald > to find the secret of creating a Horcrux. But I do doubt that he > actually learned first hand from Grindelwald how it was done. I > think he may have learned more about the mechanics of it in the > Chamber of Secrets, from Salazar. And possibly experimented with > it before he even knew what it was, producing the Diary. Jen: The time-frame for Tom to study directly with GW would have been short. From the time he talked to Slughorn, during the sixth- year, until GW's defeat in 1945 which came during or right after Tom's seventh year, there was only about a year span. I tend toward the idea Tom hadn't yet made the diary into a Horxcrux when he talked to Slughorn, but *had* put his memory into it (that seemed like two different processes to me, the way DD described the diary as a memory and a weapon). But it does seem Tom was either in the process of making a Horcrux, or had already sealed one, when DD defeated Grindelwald. That probably did stike fear in Voldemort's heart and provided even more incentive to pursue his seven-part Horcrux plan. Jen From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Sep 6 04:59:41 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 04:59:41 -0000 Subject: A moral relativist? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139646 I have been accused of being a practicing moral relativist, so I guess I'm going to have to defend myself. It all started when a member of this group used the words "disgusted", "horrified", "repulsed" and "appalled" to describe Harry using the HBP instructions rather than those in the textbook. I thought and still think those words were way overblown in what after all is a very minor matter, in fact even my accuser grants that "many many things" that Harry will have to deal with are far worse. So it would seem to me that if I'm right Harry did nothing wrong and if my accuser is right then what Harry did was wrong but trivial, so who cares either way. Nevertheless somehow I got branded with this moral relativists label and I don't much like it. Eggplant From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Tue Sep 6 05:38:50 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 05:38:50 -0000 Subject: either must die at the hand of the other, Contradiction or Clue? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139647 Hi Valky, your post reminded me of trying to solve complicated maths problems, where I thought, finally, I'm onto something, only to get to the point where the next line is `therefore: 5=7' :-) Valky wrote: >Something that has had my attention since my first read of HBP, is >the line from the prophecy that says either must die at the hand of >the other. The reason this bothers me is because Dumbledore claims >that he and Harry have both destroyed a piece of Voldemorts soul >each, or at least he seems to. And I question, how can Voldemort >die at the hands of two people? It contradicts the prophecy. Saraquel: What strikes me about this whole situation, is what does it mean to be *alive* in JKR's world, and therefore what is death? I'm going to now tie myself in knots, and hopefully take this line of thought a little further down its long and convoluted path. My take on the horcrux!soul parts, is that they are not truly alive and therefore, destroying them is not technically killing them. They don't die, they are destroyed. If the horcrux!soul parts are alive, then DD and Harry have already committed murder (yes, I am aware of the ongoing discussions about what constitutes murder and what is manslaughter, but for this post, I'm going to stick with ? killing is murder.) The horcrux!soul parts (I'm sick of typing that out ? from now on abbreviated to HSPs ? Hmmm higher sensory perceptions ? well, maybe not quite but very nearly!) of the Voldemort's soul appear to be stuck in a time warp. In CoS, the Tom Riddle who emerges from the diary, was unaware of who Harry was before Ginny explained it to him. The HSP is Tom Riddle at 16 with no awareness of Voldemort's future, only of its past. Whilst in the diary, the HSP had no body, and presumably, no ability to sense the outside world. Could it think? I'm not sure, but possibly yes, it responded to Ginny. But, that might have been because she made the first move and gave it some power of her own. Difficult to pin that one down. It does not appear to have initiated actions itself, but was able to respond. Also, Voldemort was not aware that the Diary HSP had been destroyed. His current life was not affected by its destruction. So either we are saying that there are 7 actually completely independent Voldemort's, or we are saying that the HSPs have a complicated relationship with their original. Contrast that with the experience of Vapormort. Vapormort most definitely continued to be aware of time, place and events. He was able to perform spontaneous action ? to possess small animals and snakes. He continued to live in a straightforward sense, even though he did not have a body. It seems to me that there is a substantial qualitative difference. Voldemort's remarks on this situation are also interesting: UK Edition GoF p566 ""I was ripped from my body, I was less than spirit, less then the meanest ghost but still, I was alive. What I was, even I do not know " p567 "I remember only forcing myself, sleeplessly, endlessly, second by second, to exist I settled in a faraway place, in a forest, and I waited surely, one of my faithful Death Eaters would try and find me one of them would come and perform the magic I could not, to restore me to a body" Once Voldemort had a body of any sort, Snake, Quirrel, his foetus body, it seems he no longer had to force himself to exist at every moment. He was able, with Quirrel and in the foetus, to think of other things, make plans and perform magic etc. It seems, without a body, he was fighting for existence. Which gets me back to the topic that I keep nibbling away at without success ? what is the relevance of bodies . but I digress marginally. So it seems to me, that the only part of Voldemort that is truly alive, and can therefore be killed, is the soul *and* body that is walking around calling itself Voldemort. It can continue to exist without any of the HSPs, but, if you try and kill it, with any of the HSPs still in existence, they somehow anchor the original soul part to this world and prevent it from going beyond the veil ? i.e. dying. So dying seems to be a two part process ? destruction of the body and release of the soul to beyond the veil. Have I got us anywhere?? Maybe now, 4.9 = 5.1 - Recutio ad absurdum! Saraquel: Ceridwen, thanks for your reply post to OFH!Snape. As we are limited to three posts per day, I thought I'd wait and see if anyone else took up a thread and answer them all together. So I'll get back to you. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Sep 6 05:41:14 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 05:41:14 -0000 Subject: Flitwick, Harry's book, sexy Snape, Harry's heart In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139648 Ginger: > If we go back to the graveyard scene in GoF, Harry decided to > face, and possibly accept, death. He decided to die on his feet, > fighting like his father. This courage in the face of death > happened even before the Phoenix started singing. > > LV, on the other hand, was described as "his face livid with fear" > when facing the echos of his victims. Death looked him in the > face, and he was afraid. Death looked Harry in the face, and he > rose to the challenge. Jen: The graveyard scene became particulary meaningful after hearing Dumbledore describe Voldemort as secretly fearing both death and darkness. I felt empathy for young Riddle when Dumbledore described those particular fears, still present in the most evil wizard ever. He spent his life attempting to conquer death and the ultimate darkness, but he can't conquer those little-boy fears conceived during his early life at the orphange. Ginger: > I think in the end this will be Harry's strongest weapon. He is > not afraid of LV's greatest fear. Jen: You just made me realize a really big difference between these two--Harry's fears have changed over time because he is capable of finding the resources to overcome them. He once feared Dementors most of all, but now he's learned a strategy to banish them, so I'm certain he has a new boggart fear. Perhaps not dying, but dying before he defeats Voldemort? Ginger: > He will go into their final battle no holds barred, no fear, ready > to give everything, even his life if necessary, to defeat LV. > Hopefully, he will have destroyed the Horcruces by then. If he > keeps his wits about him, this will be a powerful weapon in > addition to dueling. > > If he can keep up an ongoing patter along the lines of "You're > going to die, Tom. I destroyed your locket. And your cup. And > your ...(insert other Horcruces) You will die. Perhaps not > today, but you will die. If you kill me, there will always be > another. And another. I am but one man. You can kill me and > others will come after. But you will die. It's over. You are no > more immortal than I." he may wear LV down and force him to make > crucial mistakes. Jen: HEEE, love this Ginger. I'm sure those were the kinds of things the Priori Incantatem ghosts were whispering in Voldemort's ear to increase his fear in the graveyard. Not about the Horcuxes (or maybe so, could they know more than they knew alive?), but whispering how Harry is more powerful, how he will eventually destroy him. Ginger: > OK, so there's a reason I'm not a writer, (That last paragraph > sounds familiar- does it ring a bell with anyone else? Reply > offlist, please. It's bugging me.) Jen: Maybe someone already suggested this to you off-list, but I actually have a canon point to make so I'm writing on-list ;). Your previous paragraph reminded me of Obi Wan and Darth in A New Hope when Obi Wan tells Darth: "You can't win, Darth, if you stike me down I will only become more powerful. I will join the force..." or something to that effect. So for the canon comment, I thought of this scene when Dumbledore died. I wondered if he, too, would become more powerful in death? Not as a vision coming to Harry, like Obi Wan for Luke, but more....well, I'm not sure exactly what, but there's something significant about the moment Harry realized how his parents, Sirius, and Dumbledore had stood in front of him 'one by one....all determined to protect him'. I don't believe Dumbledore intentionally sacrificed his life for Harry on the tower, but he actually did sacrifice the life he once had on the day he heard the prophecy. Maybe when he heard the prophecy he didn't *love* Harry yet, but he believed in the power of love magic to overcome Voldemort's type of magic. And he was willing to do everything he could to make sure that happened, as were James, Lily and Sirius. Belief that strong must confer some kind of power from the after-life! Jen, suddenly realizing while the people Snape hates tend to end up dead, the same could be said for the people Harry loves :( From juli17 at aol.com Tue Sep 6 06:31:19 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 02:31:19 EDT Subject: Killing tears the soul apart redux. WAS: Re: Snape's penance? Message-ID: <105.67e8619c.304e91b7@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139649 Kemper wrote: Here is the evidence that the narrator argues (though 'suggests' would be a better word) that killing is okay. (OoP 844, US soft) ...Harry asked..."The end of the prophecy... it was something about ...'neither can live...'" "'...while the other survives,'" said Dumbledore. ..."so does that mean that ... that one of us has got to kill the other one... in the end?" "Yes, " said Dumbledore. Dumbledore, our sage, suggests (if not advocates) killing... at least, killing Voldemort. To add to the discussion... Is taking the life just physical? What about the victim's soul? Is destroying a soul evil? What about part of it? Julie says: A lot of posters have mentioned that Dumbledore wouldn't have asked Snape to kill him when he knew it would split Snape's soul. But if *any* killing splits the soul, then how could Dumbledore tell Harry he will have to kill Voldemort, when he knows such an act will split Harry's soul? I don't think it will, not in Harry's case, and not in Snape's case (I am for the moment presuming DD'sMan!Snape at the Tower). If Harry actually kills Voldemort, it will be in self-defense. Harry won't strike Voldemort first, but Voldemort has proven he won't stop until he kills Harry. He will leave Harry no choice. And when Snape killed Dumbledore, he was taking the BEST possible action he could, with Dumbledore's complicity. Nothing could save Dumbledore (even if he wasn't already dying--and I think he was--losing Snape to the Unbreakable Vow leaves Dumbledore dead at the hands of the DEs), but Snape could save everyone else involved--Draco, Harry, himself, and perhaps many students and Order members who were in imminent danger from Greyback and the DEs--by taking out Dumbledore. Though these two killings differ from each other, both have something in common. They are necessary killings in that there is no BETTER option available. Harry can't avoid killing Voldemort because Voldemort will kill him if he doesn't. Snape can't save Dumbledore because it's already too late for that, he can only choose to die with Dumbledore and perhaps with several others to follow, or he can save himself and those others. (This also nicely explains Dumbledore's plea "Severus...please." DD means "You must complete this horrible task and save Draco, Harry, and everyone else in danger at Hogwarts, as well as yourself."--Which will save the whole WW, in the end. I placed the "yourself" at the end because I really don't think Snape cares that much about his own life.) I seem to recall Dumbledore saying specifically that it was *unjustified* killing--which one could call a definition of Murder-- that stains the soul (and this is probably the same type of killing that splits the soul, as the two effects sound similar). So, if it is justified--self defense (Harry), the best option left, or perhaps you could call it the lesser of two evils (Snape)-- then we have canon reason to believe it may not harm the soul, at least not irrepairably. As for killing a soul, it seems to me that killing a body doesn't kill the soul. But the Dementors can suck out someone's soul, which seems to be a more feared fate than mere death. Even Voldy is busy creating soul horcruxes, because he can't be alive without a soul (though he managed for a while without a body). And, whatever constitutes the "afterlife" in the WW (or going beyond the veil), I assume it's not available if your soul is destroyed. Which makes killing a soul seem a lot more evil than merely killing a body. Now I'll add a question for debate. If Harry destroys all Voldy's horcruxes (with or without help), then he ends up killing Voldy (in self defense of course), where does that leave what's left of Voldy's soul? Would a soul in such a reduced state be able to get beyond the veil, or whatever? Is this what Dumbledore meant when he told Voldemort that there are worse fates than death? Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 6 06:39:08 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 06:39:08 -0000 Subject: Grindelwald taught Tom about making Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139650 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: Valky: > Leaving us with only one thing left to find - What made Grindelwald > immortal. We only have canon on one method of pursuing immortality so > let's call it that, Horcruxes. Geoff: Where are we told that Grindelwald was immortal? And, if so, where is the dear chap now? IIRC we are told only that Dumbledore defeated him in 1945. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Sep 6 08:19:56 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 08:19:56 -0000 Subject: looks determining character In-Reply-To: <001001c5b27e$8287d2d0$ea3d79a5@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139651 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > > So, i haven't judged the characters on their looks. Whew, ok, a long > prelude to my point. I think that those who fear the ugly description of > Snape then him being evil could send a bad message to children might be > forgetting that the big baddie is supposed to be handsome and charming. > Isn't the young Tom riddle described as handsome? Didn't he have a way of > charming everyone around him, except for Dumbledore? I remember that, > because I felt kind of squeamish at the descriptions of his charm and good > looks. Hickengruendler: You are right. The villains are both, good looking and ugly. You already mentioned Tom. Bellatrix, too, is described as beautiful (at least before her holiday in Azkaban), as is Narcissa. Gilderoy Lockhart, who is not as evil as the ones mentioned above, but still completely unlikable, too, is very handsome. Other villains, like Quirrell or Crouch jr are at least average looking and certainly not completely ugly. But I think the problem, that many people have, is not, that nearly every villain is ugly, it's that nearly every ugly looking person is a villain. Snape is deeply unpleasant, no matter on which side he is, the Dursleys, who in their features are complete caricatures, are horrid, the background Slytherins and Death Eaters all resemble trolls (might be because they are all inbred, like the Gaunts), Sirius' mother is a remarkably old and ugly witch and I won't even start about Umbridge. On the other hand, both Molly and Neville, who seem to be a bit on the chubby side, are always described very carefully. It are only the bad characters, like Draco or Pansy, who call them "fat", and they are nonetheless pretty normal looking, in contrast to many villains. In fact, the only ugly character, who is not evil, is Moaning Myrtle. And even if nothing will take away Snape's horridness towards the students, it would IMO still help a lot, if his ugliness and his appereance, who resemble the classic villain so much, are just a red-herring by the author. Sherry: In fact, other than > the impression we are given that the young Sirius and James are attractive, > is any good guy character presented as particularly stunning? i know > there's been talk about Ginny being beautiful, but is she? I don't even > remember that at all. Hickengruendler: Seeing that about every character called her beautiful, I think it's fair game to say that she is. Cedric, too, was described as handsome, though it didn't help him much, and the most obvious example is of course Fleur. Hickengruendler From littleleah at handbag.com Tue Sep 6 09:10:42 2005 From: littleleah at handbag.com (littleleahstill) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 09:10:42 -0000 Subject: looks determining character Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139652 Hickengruendler wrote: You are right. The villains are both, good looking and ugly. You already mentioned Tom. Bellatrix, too, is described as beautiful (at least before her holiday in Azkaban), as is Narcissa. Gilderoy Lockhart, who is not as evil as the ones mentioned above, but still completely unlikable, too, is very handsome. Other villains, like Quirrell or Crouch jr are at least average looking and certainly not completely ugly. But I think the problem, that many people have, is not, that nearly every villain is ugly, it's that nearly every ugly looking person is a villain. Snape is deeply unpleasant, no matter on which side he is, the Dursleys, who in their features are complete caricatures, are horrid (snipped) Leah: There seems to me to be a sense in which some of the ugliness of the 'ugly villains' is self-inflicted. Vernon and Dudley's obesity, for example, while Dolores would not look quite such a fright if she did not favour little-girl dresses and hair ribbons. Snape's looks, the black hair, hooked nose, sallow skin, are actually quite similar to those of Victor Krum, but Snape always comes with an air of neglect, he does not appear to wash his hair (or his underwear apparently). While there are reasons for Draco's decline in HBP, there is a definite focus on the loss of his good looks. Sirius and his cousins were/are lookers, so perhaps his mum was once one too. Is this failure to look after oneself's physically related to a moral neglect, and if so, why does it seem to affect only some of the 'villians'- Snape, but not Bellatrix? Did the affected characters have more innate possibility of goodness? That seems difficult to relate to Umbridge, and of course to the prime example of physical decline, Tom Riddle. Conversely, we have a few characters who are now fairly hideous, but started off well- Alistir Moody and Bill Weasley are the obvious ones; we haven't seen Frank Longbottom, but Alice started off at least sweet looking and is now in a bit of a state. In all these cases, the ugliness has been inflicted upon them in the fight against evil. Are we being asked to look beyond the obvious to moral cause? Leah From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Sep 6 10:35:02 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 10:35:02 -0000 Subject: looks determining character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139653 Hickengruendler wrote: ...But I think the problem, that many people have, is not, that nearly every villain is ugly, it's that nearly every ugly looking person is a villain. Snape is deeply unpleasant, no matter on which side he is, the Dursleys, who in their features are complete caricatures, are horrid, the background Slytherins and Death Eaters all resemble trolls (might be because they are all inbred, like the Gaunts), Sirius' mother is a remarkably old and ugly witch and I won't even start about Umbridge... vmonte responds: It's funny that this topic came up because I think that JKR is setting up the most repulsive character in the series to be a good guy. Yep, I think that it's going to be Slughorn. JKR needs to show a Slytherin that is on the good side. I find it funny that some people think that it would be bad for JKR to make Snape be a bad guy because he is ugly and repulsive. Well, you cannot get any more repulsive than Slughorn! HA! There's been a lot of speculation in the past that Snape probably lost his family due to Voldemort. I think a more likely candidate is Slughorn. Wouldn't you want to get rid of the person that would know what you were up to with the horcruxes? "Shame, my father always said he was a good wizard in his day. My father used to be a favorite of his. Slughorn probably hasn't heard I'm on the train, or--" "I wouldn't bank on an invitation," said Zabini. "He asked me about Nott's father when I first arrived. They used to be old friends apparently, but when he heard he'd been caught at the Ministry he didn't look happy, and Nott didn't get an invitation, did he? I don't think Slughorn's interested in Death Eaters." (151, The Slug Club) Also, if Snape is evil then there is probably another former DE/bad guy that will turn out to be good. I nominate Aberforth Dumbledore. "He cannot kill you if you are already dead. Come over to the right side, Draco, and we can hide you more completely than you can possible imagine." (592, The Lighting Struck Tower) It would be nice to see that Dumbledore was right all along about giving people a second chance. Is Aberforth really Dumbledore's brother? Or is he someone that's hiding in plain site of everyone? I kind of like that Aberforth works in a bar. Sounds like a good place to work undercover, and get information. Who is he then? Vivian Sherry, your post was awesome! From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Tue Sep 6 10:45:28 2005 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 11:45:28 +0100 (BST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: looks determining character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050906104529.82974.qmail@web86201.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139654 --- vmonte wrote: > It's funny that this topic came up because I think > that JKR is > setting up the most repulsive character in the > series to be a good > guy. Yep, I think that it's going to be Slughorn. > > JKR needs to show a Slytherin that is on the good > side. > > I find it funny that some people think that it would > be bad for JKR > to make Snape be a bad guy because he is ugly and > repulsive. Well, > you cannot get any more repulsive than Slughorn! > HA! I'm amazed. Repulsive? What's repulsive about him (unless you get some sort of sinister vibe about his club, which we've discussed before)? A fat jovial old guy, a bit on the vain side, so what? How can he be more repulsive than Umbridge? Than Gaunt guys? Than Kreacher? My imagination always brings up Peter Ustinov when Slughorn appears in the book, so repulsive is about the last adjective that comes to mind. Irene ___________________________________________________________ How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Tue Sep 6 10:59:53 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 10:59:53 -0000 Subject: Who is hidden more completely? Was Re: looks determining character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139655 Vivian wrote: > I nominate Aberforth Dumbledore. > > "He cannot kill you if you are already dead. Come over to the right > side, Draco, and we can hide you more completely than you can > possible imagine." (592, The Lighting Struck Tower) > > It would be nice to see that Dumbledore was right all along about > giving people a second chance. Is Aberforth really Dumbledore's > brother? Or is he someone that's hiding in plain site of everyone? > > I kind of like that Aberforth works in a bar. Sounds like a good > place to work undercover, and get information. > > Who is he then? Saraquel: Vivian, I think Aberforth is Aberforth, but my guess is Mrs Figg and her cabbage smelling residence - I think it's Caradoc Dearborn who swings the real catfood there. He didn't turn out to be the half blood prince, so he's got to come into the story somehow - he disappeared without trace after all! As for Slughorn - I found him really creepy too, although Umbridge beats him by a short head. Saraquel From ryokas at hotmail.com Tue Sep 6 11:43:21 2005 From: ryokas at hotmail.com (Miikka R.) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 11:43:21 -0000 Subject: Possible source of DD's hand injury Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139656 I don't have enough data to present much evidence one way or the other, so I'm going to keep this short. DD's destruction of the ring Horcrux was apparently difficult, dangerous and required extreme measures. Horcruxes contain parts of soul, the living-ness of which is in question. The ring that cost Dumbledore his hand remained intact. I therefore suggest that DD committed the deed by sticking the ring through the veil - while holding it in his hand, which from that point forth looked dead and didn't heal at all. Discuss. - Kizor From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Sep 6 12:05:25 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:05:25 -0000 Subject: looks determining character In-Reply-To: <20050906104529.82974.qmail@web86201.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139657 Irene wrote: I'm amazed. Repulsive? What's repulsive about him (unless you get some sort of sinister vibe about his club, which we've discussed before)? A fat jovial old guy, a bit on the vain side, so what? How can he be more repulsive than Umbridge? Than Gaunt guys? Than Kreacher? My imagination always brings up Peter Ustinov when Slughorn appears in the book, so repulsive is about the last adjective that comes to mind. vmonte: enormously fat shiny pate prominent eyes and Grand Pre's drawing of him: http://www.mugglenet.com/books/chapterpics/images/hbp/originals/hbp04. jpg But you're right that there are many bad people that are ugly (as well as attractive). Snape just needs to take a bath. Vivian From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Sep 6 12:07:25 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:07:25 -0000 Subject: looks determining character In-Reply-To: <20050906104529.82974.qmail@web86201.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139658 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Irene Mikhlin wrote: > I'm amazed. Repulsive? What's repulsive about him (unless you get > some sort of sinister vibe about his club, which we've discussed > before)? Okay, I'll bite. I don't find Slughorn deeply repulsive, but I do find him to be somewhat representative of a type I don't care for, partially out of personal experience. Slughorn is the man of connections. He latches on to students of talent--but he also looks for social connections, people with famous reputations, etc. He grooms students, and then subsequently benefits in terms of his own comfort/reputation/whatever from their successes. This is a very familiar type in old British academia, when getting into school was far more based on 'who's your daddy' (which is a founding principle of Slytherin House) than anything like talent or skills. It's not too far gone (if at all) in many American institutions, as well. As an academic, I absolutely loathe his type. Pleasant enough teacher (at least he's not a bastard), but not about the academics. He's more than a little like the undergrads I see who major in extracurricular activities. If you can't Do Something For Him, he's not interested in you; those who suck up to him benefit. He certainly does represent a far more genteel side of Slytherin House than the strain of Voldemort, which has had such a strong presence in the House for years. But if we were thinking of him according to Dante, he'd be in the vestibule: those who avoid taking sides end up nowhere at all. It's not as overtly damaging as some actions, but it's the kind of thing that gets entrenched (although I do note that Sluggy is more open than he might have been to Muggleborns and such) and becomes cancerous in society. > A fat jovial old guy, a bit on the vain side, so what? How can he > be more repulsive than Umbridge? Than Gaunt guys? Than Kreacher? I wouldn't say he is. Slughorn does, however, give me the faint air of sliminess, a particular kind of self-interest. He's not the kind of rampaging evil that Voldemort is, but he's part of the nexus of acceptable societal attitudes (note his attitude to the Dark Arts, which got even more connected to an idea of amorality/those with power and innate quality should be able to use them) which helped to produce the mess. -Nora knows the perfect academic satire of the Slughorn type... From ken.fruit at gmail.com Tue Sep 6 12:14:23 2005 From: ken.fruit at gmail.com (rt11guru) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:14:23 -0000 Subject: Arthur -- Lurking danger, or fuzzy hor d'oeuvre? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139659 Rereading HBP, I noticed the following in the account of the party after the quidditch match: [Harry] walked straight into Ginny, Arnold the Pygmy Puff riding on her shoulder and Crookshanks mewing hopefully at her heels. ... [Ginny] walked off to help herself to more butterbeer. Crookshants trotted after her, his yellow eyes fixed upon Arnold. So is this the cat part of Crookshanks viewing Arthur as a furry little snack, or is the kneazle part keeping a close eye on another dangerous beastie? Discuss. Note: If you reference a student annotated copy of "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them", please cite the author of the notes to avoid accusations of plagiarism. Guru From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 6 12:25:08 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:25:08 -0000 Subject: Snape's worst memory--more to come??? (oops, looong) In-Reply-To: <1df.432a8b9b.304e3afe@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139660 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at a... wrote: > Still, it would be an interesting way for Harry to discover the *real* > Snape, wouldn't it? If Snape left those memories behind (perhaps > unintentionally) and Harry somehow found a way (and a motivation) > to access them in the pensieve, this could be the manner by which > the exact extent of Snape's culpability in the Potter murders (as > well as other aspects of his character) is revealed. > > But what about Snape's memory #2? It may not be a bad memory, > just one Harry mustn't see (one that, as Gatta says, might give away > the ultimate plot). If Harry does eventually access this memory, it > will probably be one that reveals more of Snape. And it might be the > very one that shows why Snape really left Voldemort and came over > to Dumbledore's side. Whether it involves friendship or love for Lily, > which would certainly be bangy for Harry (unpleasantly so, no doubt!), > or based on something else we haven't learned yet, it would be a > memory Snape (and Dumbledore) wouldn't want Harry to see. We > know this from the several times Dumbledore has refused to tell > Harry why he trusts Snape. > Since I don't have a definite theory for memory #2, let's move on to > #3. I think #3 is Godric's Hollow. I don't know if Snape was actually > there while Voldemort killed James and Lily, but I tend to think not, > as I can't see him (as DD'sMan!Snape) standing by while they are > killed. Snape is many unpleasant things, but he's not a coward in > the sense of preserving his own life at all costs (non- Slytherinish, > I know, but Snape's always diverged from that particular Slytherin > trait). > > Instead, I think Snape may have been nearby, hunting for Voldemort, > hoping to stop him, but unable to locate Godric's Hollow as he is > not the secret-keeper (and hasn't been told the location, as Voldy > was). But as soon as the Potters are dead, and Voldemort is > transformed into Vapormort, the secret disintigrates (or whatever). > Godric's Hollow becomes accessible, and Snape goes there, > perhaps right after Peter has transferred what's left of Voldy out > of the burning house. Snape finds the dead James (and perhaps > feels a brief twinge of remorse mixed with anger--he did warn the > stupid man after all), then Lily (which engenders a much deeper > sense of remorse, and perhaps more anger at James, who could > have saved her if he'd only listened to Snape). > > And he finds the squalling boy-child, Harry, whom he takes with > him from the burning house, either to Spinner's End, or to some > other location where he perhaps gives him some potion, charms > him, takes some oath to protect him, or whatever, in the presence > of Dumbledore, and maybe Hagrid. In the end Hagrid takes Harry, > (or Dumbledore takes him to Hagrid), Dumbledore goes to Privet > Drive, and Snape goes back to Hogwarts. But something is set > in motion, something that ties Snape and Harry together from > this moment, right on through their years together at Hogwarts, > and beyond. Marianne: And then they take Harry back to the destroyed house in time for Sirius and Hagrid to arrive and argue over who should take Harry away? I think canon is pretty specific that Hagrid was the one who took Harry from the house. Hagrid says he was obeying DD's orders. Now, maybe you're right and Hagrid also has not told us everything. Perhaps his orders were to take Harry to Snape's house, wait around for Snape to do his wound nursing and soul bonding, and then fly Harry to meet DD at Privet Drive. Which would then lead me to ask why couldn't DD meet up with them at Snape's and take Harry back himself? Why have Hagrid flying around England on Sirius' bike with an infant any longer than he has to? Julie: > This would mean Snape had a hand in saving Harry's life much > earlier than we even knew, and has continued interfere in that > manner with somewhat tedious regularity--damn, no wonder he > resents that kid! ;-) > > Much as Harry may hate finding this out, Snape is smack in the > middle of everything to do with Harry's life, and has been since > Day 1. Good, bad, indifferent--and Snape is a mysterious mix of > it all--Snape isn't going away. Those two will deal with each other > again, and it may be those unknown memories Harry *didn't* see > in the Pensieve that will set the tone for their final confrontation, > or resolution, whichever it may be. Marianne: Well, I agree that Snape isn't going away. He's sort of like an irritating recurrent rash in that respect. I'm not convinced that he's up to his neck in all things Harry from the events of Godric's Hollow in the manner in which you've portrayed. But, it would be a kick to discover that those other two memories are still floating around in the Pensieve, although I'd have trouble believing that Snape forgot to put them back in his head after his last Occlumency lesson with Harry. That would strike me as very un-Snapish behavior. Marianne, who thinks Julie's post made perfect sense, even if I didn't agree with it From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 6 12:47:31 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:47:31 -0000 Subject: Sirius' declaration of loyalty in the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139661 Magda: > > What I am objecting to is the over-the-topness of a declaration > > like "you should have died for us like we would have died for > > you". If you're going to make that kind of statement about > > anyone, you'd better have thought long and hard about that > > person, seriously considered their weak points, their flaws, > > their blind spots, everything about that person that might cause > > them to let you down in the worst possible way at the worst > > possible time. Not just because you slept in the same dorm for > > seven years, gave each other dumb nicknames and did pranks > > together. SSSusan: But I think the point is, for someone like Sirius (and quite possibly James & Remus, too), he wouldn't HAVE to think about it long & hard for him to MEAN it. I'm sure that strikes you as irresponsible, but it doesn't negate the strength of the feeling inside Sirius. If he didn't think long & hard about it, it doesn't mean he still wouldn't have acted upon it. Phoenixgod wrote: > Brotherhood. Fraternity. Friendship. These are powerful concepts > that have far more powerful hold over the male heart than you give > credit for. I think you diminish the Marauders when you reduce > them to just living together, giving each other stupid nicknames, > and doing pranks. > To say that Sirius, James, Remus, and Peter couldn't have > formed a bond that meant so much in seven years is just plain > wrong. And it could have been further honed during the war after > they graduated. SSSusan: I totally agree. Because of my father's teaching, I've spent my life around -- & have now worked myself for ten years -- at one of the couple of remaining all-male colleges in the U.S. Fraternities are HUGE here, and the sense of loyalty to one another is extremely strong. In addition to the living unit fraternities, there is a "pep club" kind of fraternity, for which one has to do all sorts of silly, oddball rituals, like painting one leg green and dropping to the ground & kicking your legs in the air wherever a current member shouts "Air raid!" Silly, but by the time it's over, there's a bond there. I would maintain that, with the four Marauders, it could well have been something similar, only *stronger.* Yes, we see *a* scene where Sirius ridicules Peter, but we also have evidence that they did a LOT together. It took them a very long time to become animagi, and Peter the longest. Yet they DID it together -- they spent the time, they helped him learn. Teenaged boys, if they didn't really want someone around, would've told him to scram waaaaay before what it took to get Peter able to turn into Scabbers. They also created the map, presumably *together.* They roamed about the grounds & Hogsmeade every month when Remus transformed. I'll grant that the level of respect for Peter may have been less than it was among the other three, but if they didn't have ANY respect or *liking* for him, they'd have told him to bugger off. Phoenixgod: > Furthermore, remember what Sirius' form was. A dog. a greater > example of living and breathing loyalty you will never see. Dogs > don't judge. They don't weigh outcomes. They just give their > loyalty and love without a second thought. Sirius was the same > way. The other marauders were his family. Unhesitatingly giving > his life for them was totally in character and deeply moving in my > opinion. SSSusan: Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. If there is anything I believe about Sirius, it's his sincerity when he said he'd have died for *any* of the Marauders. Is that stupid? Maybe in many people's opinions, but not in Sirius'. Magda: > > One of the biggest myths of the series is the so- > > called "friendship" between the four Marauders. Phoenixgod: > I would argue the exact opposite. While they weren't equals, I > think there is enough evidence of a strong friendship to counter > the one scene we see in the pensieve. SSSusan: I agree with Phoenixgod again. "Myth" is an awfully strong word to use. Think of the time spent together, the secrets shared, what they did together and for one another while at Hogwarts. And then joining the Order together afterwards. I just don't see how this makes it a myth. Yes, we saw Sirius making fun of Peter in the pensieve scene. I've got three older brothers and taught high schoolers for 5 years. Teenage boys can be pretty blunt with one another. But saying something about a friend's weaknesses or faults, even in an insulting way, doesn't negate the friendship. It's just... well, bluntness. Phoenixgod: > Contrast that with Pettigrew and James. Pettigrew was brought in > on the inner circle. They helped him become an animagus, his voice > is on the marauders map, he runs in the woods with Remus alongside > them. That is far too much work just to keep a person around to > stroke the old ego. Men and especially teenage boys are far too > self centered to devote that much attention to someone they don't > like all that much. SSSusan: Yep. If this discussion were about Harry & Ron with Seamus or Dean, I could see the hesitancy in calling the relationship deep, true friendship of the sort where one would offer to die for the others. (Well, except that Harry might die for almost anybody! ) But look at the time spent together and the activities in the situation. Harry and Ron are together all the time, have had incredible (and incredibly dangerous) adventures together. Does anyone doubt they'd pledge to die for one another? But Dean & Seamus, while dormmates and friends, aren't as close to Harry & Ron. They haven't gone into the Forbidden Forest together or flown thestrals off to the MoM to fight DEs or gone through a dangerous obstacle course to save the Sorcerer's Stone. It's the intensity of the experiences, it's the time spent together and the nature of the activities in that time, which make the friendship so deep as to lead to someone saying "I'd die for any of you." I maintain that the kinds of things the Marauders did together -- developing the map, learning to become animagi, accompanying Remus, keeping Remus' secret -- were similar to what Harry & Ron (& Hermione) have done. And in both situations, add to it that it was a time of struggle against Voldemort, and the stakes are higher than just your average "living with a group of guys in the dorm" situation. Magda: > > Yes, I am. Peter had no sincere feelings of friendship for any > > of them. He wanted to tag along with the Big Men on Campus and > > he was prepared to be humiliated as the price for this > > privilege. Phoenixgod: > I don't know. I think there is some evidence that Peter had been > tortured and broken by Voldemort. It will be interesting to see > what happens in book seven. SSSusan: It's possible, Magda, but I don't see how you can state this as fact. "Peter had no sincere feelings of friendship.... He wanted to tag along...." You can tell all of this for certain? I can't. Like Phoenixgod, I think it's equally possible (well, no, that's not true -- I think it's MORE possible) that the feelings of friendship were genuine, but that Voldemort exploited Peter's weaknesses at some point. I keep coming back to DD's statement (paraphrased) that Harry may very well be glad someday to have someone who owes him a life debt. He was speaking, of course, of Peter. Why would JKR have included that remark if it weren't going to play out at some point? I think Peter, while certainly having betrayed his friends and shown real weakness, might yet be a good candidate for a character to be redeemed, based upon that remark by DD. We shall see. Siriusly Snapey Susan From sophiapriskilla at yahoo.com Tue Sep 6 14:16:18 2005 From: sophiapriskilla at yahoo.com (hekatesheadband) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 14:16:18 -0000 Subject: looks determining character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139662 It seems to me that part of the issue is the tendency, probably universal among humans, to remember the superficial negative traits of people we dislike more emphatically than the superficial negative traits of people we do like. JKR does a good job of making Harry's perspective on this psychologically realistic. Readers tend to follow this lead. hickengruendler: < not, that nearly every villain is ugly, it's that nearly every ugly > looking person is a villain. Snape... the Dursleys... the background Slytherins and Death Eaters > all resemble trolls... Sirius' mother is a remarkably old and ugly witch and I > won't even start about Umbridge... the only ugly > character, who is not evil, is Moaning Myrtle.>> I think the Harry filter is coming into play here, but of course there's always another layer. If I recall correctly, Moaning Myrtle is described only as plain-looking. At the end of CoS, however, Dobby is explicity described as ugly ("tears streamed down Dobby's ugly face," I believe). Similarly, Mrs Black is actually described as looking like she's being tortured horribly - not likely to work wonders for anyone's appearance, although admittedly the sallow skin and bloodshot eyes don't help either. Sounds to me like a lifetime of drinking got to her liver in the end. hickengruendler: < Neville, who seem to be a bit on the chubby side, are always > described very carefully. It are only the bad characters, like Draco > or Pansy, who call them "fat"...>> Very true. But I think the Harry filter is at least as much a factor here as it is with the unpleasant characters. The Harry-Narrator voice doesn't use words like "fat" to describe people he likes, another stroke of realism: people in general are inclined to think of overweight friends as "heavy-set" and overweight enemies as "disgustingly fat," or the like. Looking at it a little more carefully, though (i.e., picking through things with a morbid obsession;), there are plenty of White Hats who aren't exactly pretty. The prime example would be Mad-Eye Moody, who's nothing short of hideous. ("His face looked like it had been carved out of weathered wood by someone who had only the vaguest idea of what human features were supposed to look like, and was none too skilled with a chisel.") Madam Pince is likened to "an underfed vulture," and reading between the lines, McGonagall's heavy jaw, stern expression and really tight bun probably don't lend the impression of a beauty queen. Slughorn, as mentioned elsewhere, is a bit grotesque, and Prof Sprout is described as "dumpy." So I suppose the overall impression, at least as it strikes me, is that beautiful, ugly and in-between people are found in equal proportions on all moral sides. It's just that Harry's memory and perspective, like anyone's, tend to minimise his friends' bad traits and maximise his enemies'. -hekatesheadband (because the Sorting Hat is really Bono) From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Sep 6 14:59:01 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 14:59:01 -0000 Subject: numerous short replies, not all of them smart-ass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139663 Pippin wrote in > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/138999 : > > > > << Jo has already said that Harry can't learn [Occlumency] -- he's too damaged. >> Rita: > > I thought Jo said that Harry can't learn Occlumency because he isn't damaged enough. ... > > > > bboyminn: > > I think Harry has shown that he is capable of Occlumency. When his > mind was being probed by Snape during the lessons, I always felt that Harry was just as curious as Snape about the memories that came cascading out which is why he continued to watch rather than shut them off. But whenever any memory came up that was embarassing or very personal he was able to cut the memory off immediately. > > True he may never be great at it, but he can do it. It was the > circumstances that diminished his apparent ability and his belief in > his ability, rather than his ability itself. Pippin: Here's the quote again: http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/070 5-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-2.htm Harry's problem with it was always that his emotions were too near the surface and that he is in some ways too damaged. But he's also very in touch with his feelings about what's happened to him. He's not repressed, he's quite honest about facing them, and he couldn't suppress them, he couldn't suppress these memories. --- I think what she's saying is that the Dursleys never cared what Harry felt,so he never learned to hide his feelings. I mean, many abusive parents consider themselves kind and loving, and expect to be treated as if they were. Harry's never had to do that, and he's never been pressured to behave nicely for politeness' sake either. He was never forced pretend that he liked Aunt Marge giving him smothering hugs, never made to write thank you notes for gifts he didn't want, etc. I expect Dudley, if he were a wizard, would be much better at occlumency than Harry is. Harry never managed to kick Snape out of his mind by occlumency. He did it once by accidentally producing a stinging hex, and once by using the Shield Charm. So I have to think that if the memories he recalled during the lessons became more distant and less embarrassing, and if Snape never did break into his memory of actually kissing Cho, that was due more to Snape's discretion than Harry's skill. Harry wasn't able to block Snape from the image of the book and he wanted to hide that as much as he ever wanted to hide anything. I'm sure Jo got a good laugh at her fans' expense. All that bandwidth we chewed up arguing about whether Snape or Harry was to blame for the failure, but, IIRC, no one ever dared to suggest that Harry might simply be incompetent. I guess we all took it for granted that it was Harry's Jo-given right to be good at all forms of advanced magic. Well, we were wrong. Pippin From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Tue Sep 6 15:05:17 2005 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 15:05:17 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty (was "Apologies and responsibility") In-Reply-To: <63378ee705090302482cc0ca67@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139664 --- Lady Indigo asks: > If [Harry] wasn't doing anything wrong [in using the HBP > book], why the coverup? The lying? The taking the punishment > without arguing with Snape or appealing to Dumbledore? I've > seen these questions get asked a few times now and nobody's > even bothered to answer them. I've seen the questions, too, and they rather surprised me: Harry had just slashed up Draco using an untried spell out of the book. Snape, whom Harry has always known to side with Draco and against him was demanding that Harry produce the book. It seemed certain that Snape would confiscate the book if Harry gave it to him, and Harry wanted to keep it. Why did Harry lie and hide the book? Because he wanted to keep it and certainly did not want to give it to Snape, who would have taken any opportunity to magnify the severity of Harry's offense. I honestly believe at this point Harry gave very little thought to what he had done in Potions, but rather to what everyone would think if they found out he had injured Draco using an unknown spell of unknown origin from a book where it was marked as "for enemies." So while he probably acted in part out of embarrassment and shame, I think that those emotions flowed mainly from his immediate predicament and not from what he had been doing in Potions all year. Accepting the punishment? I think Harry felt he deserved it. He would never have consciously chosen to do what he did to Draco, and was appalled at himself. He wasn't being punished for using the potions notes in the book, nor do I think he had any fear of being punished for that -- I think he viewed the notes as his secret, much the way a baseball pitcher may not like to share the way he throws a particular pitch, but I don't think Harry was worried there would be any academic punishment for what he had done in Potions. And on that point, I take Hermione as something of a guide to the appropriate WW mores: When she thought Harry had cheated at Quidditch, she was ready to turn him in, but when he was using the HBP notes there was no moralizing (she confined herself to muttering under her breath and trying to convince him that they were dangerous). -- Matt From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Tue Sep 6 15:25:43 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 08:25:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: looks determining character Message-ID: <20050906152543.82398.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139665 Hickengruendler: (huge snip) In fact, the only ugly character, who is not evil, is Moaning Myrtle. Juli: How about Mad-eye Moody? He's not beautiful, or Mrs Figg, or Mundungus? I'm pretty sure neither of them are pretty, or good looking. Juli Aol: jlnbtr Yahoo: jlnbtr __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From merylanna at yahoo.com Tue Sep 6 07:57:35 2005 From: merylanna at yahoo.com (Merry Kinsella) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 00:57:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Hermione is the star - proof was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Academic dishonesty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050906075735.37354.qmail@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139666 irene_mikhlin at b...> wrote: OK, I've found a canonical proof that Hermione understands the principles behind the potions.<< merylanna says: in addition, didn't Lupin call Hermoine the brightest witch of her age he's ever met? That's not the description of someone who grinds on end to compensate for lack of inherent brilliant. I think Hermoine is inherently brilliant and that is why she's addicted to school. She needs to feed her brain. She's always making links, she's always catching on faster than anyone else. Plotwise, JKR has said Hermoine (and Dumbledore) are useful, because if you want to establish something you use one of them. The audience will immediately say "Hermoine read it in a book" and accept it as true. This may have led some to believe Hermoine is a grind who is dependant on rote study/memorization to succeed. But repeatedly throughout the books her native brilliance asserts itself, not just what she's memorized. Her work in transfiguration is routinely ahead of everyone else - and that involves more than memorizing a formula. She's the best spell caster in her year. She makes logical leaps frequently. It's useful that she has a massive store of learned information, but nobody is teaching her how to understand and use that information, as Hermoine does repeatedly. --------------------------------- Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From fabian.peng-karrholm at chalmers.se Tue Sep 6 08:10:57 2005 From: fabian.peng-karrholm at chalmers.se (Fabian Peng Krrholm) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 10:10:57 +0200 Subject: strange morals (was: Snape's Remorse vs. Snape's Worst Memory) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <431D4F11.5080405@chalmers.se> No: HPFGUIDX 139667 > > > kiricat4001: >"You have no idea of the remorse Professor Snape felt when he >realised how Lord Voldemort had interpreted the prophecy, Harry. I >believe it to be the greatest regret of his life and the reason he >returned-" >end quote > > I always thought this quote was quite interesting. I'm not sure what it means really. How on earth would Snape expect Voldemort to act on the prophecy? Invite the parents for tea? What is said after the quote is also a bit strange. Because it seems that Dumbledore more or less states that it would be ok if Voldemort had murdered someone Snape didn't know. Yes it hurts more when someone you know is murdered, but to assist in such a way to any murder is awful. At least that's the way I interpreted it when I read it. /Fabian From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Sep 6 15:45:00 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 15:45:00 -0000 Subject: looks determining character In-Reply-To: <20050906152543.82398.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139668 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Juli wrote: > Hickengruendler: (huge snip) > In fact, the only ugly character, who is not evil, is Moaning Myrtle. > > > Juli: How about Mad-eye Moody? He's not beautiful, or Mrs Figg, or Mundungus? I'm pretty sure neither of them are pretty, or good looking. Hickengruendler: I think Mrs Figg is average looking (like most characters in the books, luckily). I don't think she is or was a beauty, but no way would I call her ugly. Mundungus I'm not sure about. I don't know how he looks and if his looks are described (I have to search the books for this again, all that I rememeber is that he has red hair), and I don't know if you really can't call him evil. Sure, he's not Voldemort like evil, but he certainly is not a pleasant person and nobody I wanted to have around. Moody is ugly, but that's what he became because he fought the Death Eaters. It's sort of a graceful ugliness, because every scar on his body shows, that he is a very brave person, who fought for his and other lives probably countless times. (Just like Bill after the Fenrir attack). We don't know how he looked before he got all those scars, therefore I don't think his "ugliness" can be compared to that of Umbridge or the Dursleys or most Slytherins, who seemed to have been born that way, and whose outer ugliness reflects their inner one. On the other hand, I am aware that some of those characters are caricatures and therefore overdrawn on purpose, and that at least with the Slytherins it could now be explained with the fact, that many of them are probably inbred. But I thought about Slughorn and concure, that he is another rather ugly character who is at least okay. He was described as "fat" by the narrator, in contrast to Neville, Professor Sprout and Molly, for example, whose worst descriptions are "round" or "chubby", much more harmless adjectives. Therefore I think it is likely, that Slughorn resembles Uncle Vernon in looks a bit. Still, that makes two characters (who are both anyway not the nicest one and have many flaws, although I love Slughorn and Myrtle), while there are countless negative examples. Hickengruendler From tigerpatronus at yahoo.com Tue Sep 6 15:46:32 2005 From: tigerpatronus at yahoo.com (tigerpatronus) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 15:46:32 -0000 Subject: HBP contest -- FILK ANNOUNCING THE WINNER repost Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139669 To the tune of "Every Little Thing She Did Was Magic" by Sting/The Police. Though we all made our best guesses Some of our theories became messes Like the good ship Harmony. With Tiger yelping and Tiger roaring And twenty-five Minions scoring Over two hundred fifty entries. (But) Every little time Harry did magic "D." (doliesl) had predicted them all. Twists comedic and turns tragic "D." (doliesl) knew about them all. Though "Clio" came in close second Ten total Honorable Mentions were selected >From the slush. These entries were quite spot on So we must call all of them from now on Quite HP-ish: Chancie, Julia, and Mike Pachuta KittyKatAddict, and one (Pipes) Jamie. Hexicon and Hickengruendler Janelle and Susan (Siriusly Snapey) (But) Every little time Harry did magic "D"s entry came out on top By votes and by Ruthless Rubric With scores as high as Grawp. Let's all resolve to email (doliesl) "D." A thousand times a day And congratulate him or her In the new electronic way. But whenever s/he posts a note We must all remember to say: "D." is the Most HP Among Us Whether in posts or in TBAY. (Because) Every little time Harry did magic Tiger and the Minions were convinced That "D." must be very psychic Or s/he was the real Half-Blood Prince. To recap: The Winner: "D." (doliesl) Second Place: Clio Honorable Mentions (No particular order): Chancie Julia Mike Pachuta KittyKatAddict Jamie Pipes Hexicon Hickengruendler Janelle Siriusly Snapey Susan Just making sure everyone knows to call "D" the HP-est of Them All! First attempt at filk. Please be kind. TK -- TigerPatronus From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Sep 6 16:18:07 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 16:18:07 -0000 Subject: looks determining character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139670 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hekatesheadband" wrote: > > But I think the Harry filter is at least as much a factor > here as it is with the unpleasant characters. The Harry-Narrator voice > doesn't use words like "fat" to describe people he likes, another > stroke of realism: people in general are inclined to think of > overweight friends as "heavy-set" and overweight enemies as > "disgustingly fat," or the like. > > > So I suppose the overall impression, at least as it strikes me, is > that beautiful, ugly and in-between people are found in equal > proportions on all moral sides. It's just that Harry's memory and > perspective, like anyone's, tend to minimise his friends' bad traits > and maximise his enemies'. > > -hekatesheadband Hickengruendler: I think it's more than that. IMO, it's the narrator trying to influence the readers. My evidence for this is, that the choice of words is already the same, before Harry really gets to know them. Molly Weasley is simply described as round the moment Harry sees her for the first time at King's Cross. That's before he gets to know her and before she mothers him. Compare this with the description of Dolores Umbridge (who I think is a great villainess, by the way) during the hearing. Even before she opens her annoying mouth, she is already described in very unflattering and nearly grotesque terms. This is not Harry's bias here. It's the narrator "helping" the readers to decide whom to like or whom not. Of course it's not always the case. Especially those characters whose true motivations need to be a kept a secret before the climax, like Quirrell or Tom Riddle, are either average or pretty good looking. But I stand by my opinion, that while it is pretty often the case in the books, that good looking people are worse than they seem to be on first glance, it's very seldom the case, that the ugly looking people are better than expected. Snape, who looks exactly like the classic villain, was an exception to this, even though he certainly is not a pleasant person. I do think that him turning out to be the villain he currently seems to be, would take away some of my pleasure in the books. From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Tue Sep 6 17:06:05 2005 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:06:05 -0000 Subject: Academic dishonesty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139671 --- I wrote: >> "Perhaps a lab report would explain the source for >> unconventional methods used in the experiment, but the >> potions exercises don't call for a report; they are purely >> practical. --- Del replied: > What is being taught is the ability to successfully make a > potion *according to a certain protocol*. Simply having the > students make potions would be a waste of time and resources. > Though the potions are what is used to grade the students, > they are not what really matters. I think you are describing what you think should be being taught, rather than what the Potions classes are actually teaching. Your second sentence rather proves the point: students are graded on whether their potions come out right, not what instructions they followed or how well. The two might be easier to confuse in Snape's classes, because his instructions are portrayed with a kind of infallibility: mess up any one little step, and not only will your potion not come out right, but Snape will know exactly where you went wrong ("Did you do everything on the third line, Potter?" OP, ch. 12.). But even Snape, like Slughorn, gives marks based on the actual potions that are submitted at the end of class, not based on his observations during class -- hence the incident in OP (ch. 29) where Snape "accidentally" smashes Harry's potion and gives him a zero. > What matters is how good of a potion can the students > make while following a particular method. It's the *skill* > the students develop and demonstrate that matters, their > ability to produce a certain result under certain > circumstances - including the method they are given. So > using another method makes the whole exercise worthless. That simply can't be the case. If it were, then the preparations would need to be much more closely supervised, and Harry would never have gotten away with using the HBP book, nor would Slughorn have praised Harry for his "instinctive feel." > Let me compare this to the first DADA lesson. In that > lesson, they worked on practicing silent magic. They didn't > learn any new spell, they just had to practice those spells > silently.... Would it have been more efficient if they had > used the spells out loud? Of course! But that wasn't the > point. The point was to see how well they could do silently. The contrast between the Potions lessons and that Defense lesson is instructive, but what it shows is that when there are constraints on an assignment those constraints are explicitly stated. The Potions students were not required to follow any specific set of instructions. They weren't told "your assignment is to prepare a Draught of Living Death without the asphodel"; they were simply told (for instance) to "make a decent attempt at the Draught of Living Death," with the understanding that it was "complex" and no one's potion would be perfect. --- I had asked: >> Do the "talented" potionmakers in the class actually >> understand what they are doing, or are they simply >> following instructions? ... I tend to assume that there >> is some talent, some feel, some art involved in >> potionmaking, as there is in cooking, but I fear that >> none of the students we see has really picked this up. >> (Certainly not Hermione, who insists on slavishly >> following the recipe.) --- Del replied: > Your use of the word "slavishly" to describe Hermione > indicates to me that you missed the entire point of the > Potions lessons. That point was to teach the kids precisely > what you've just described: how potion-making works. The > ultimate point was *not* to have them make perfect potions, > even though that was what they were graded on. It was to > have the kids understand the interactions between the > different ingredients and the different moves. I daresay you might be missing something yourself if you believe that any educational lesson has only a single "point" to it. But in resolving who is closer to the "point" or "points" that the Hogwarts teachers were getting at, I think that we need to look at their methods. Certainly there were theoretical aspects to many of the assignments we saw given (for instance, Snape's essays on the uses of particular ingredients). But as you concede, the students' classrom grades depended entirely on the *results* of their potionmaking, not on the process used. Even in the antidotes assignment, which was as theoretical as any of the classroom work got, Slughorn was willing to accept Harry's *practical* solution as superior to the process-focused work that the other students produced. You can argue that Slughorn was shortsighted to do so -- even that it was poor teaching -- and I would tend to agree with you. But you cannot dispute that Slughorn's focus, as demonstrated by how he actually chose to teach the class, was on practical results rather than theory or method. > By following the book's instructions precisely, Hermione ... > studied the theory on one hand, and she applied it on the > other hand, thus learning the innards of potion-making. The > fact that she is indeed learning the art of potion-making is > demonstrated during the antidote lesson. She appears to be > the only one who actually knows what she's doing, and that's > because she understands the principles of potion-making. Following instructions doesn't sound to me much like studying theory, but I have no quarrel with the basic premise that Hermione has learned a lot about theory and principles. What I wonder is whether her degree of attachment to prescribed instructions has inhibited her from developing a feel for the subject (something she appears to have in Transfiguration and Charms). If potionmaking is indeed an art, as well as a science, then success surely requires more than just studying theory and understanding principles. Why isn't Hermione more interested in the results that Harry achieves using the Prince's instructions? Why doesn't she want to experiment with different ways of making a potion? If she thinks there is only one correct way of going about it, hasn't Hermione missed just as much as the student who shows up at cooking school insisting that there is only one way to make clam chowder? > You say you like to cook. So let me explain that in > cooking terms. [L]et's say the kids have this sauce to > make. The original recipe tells them [x].... Harry, on the > other hand, has this alternate recipe that tells him [y]. > As a result, he gets a much creamier and tastier sauce than > Hermione. But the problem is that he doesn't know *why*. The problem is that none of them, including Hermione, knows why, because none of them seems to be interested in any experimentation at all. Possibly you mistake my point: I was not suggesting that Harry learned more because he used the HBP book; I was wondering why none of the students seemed interested in much experimentation or fiddling with the instructions, and was simply noting that the deviations in the HBP book gave Harry an opportunity to explore that subject, not that he appeared to be doing so to any great degree. > [Harry] can't identify the different ingredients when > tasting the two sauces [and] doesn't understand what > cooking does to a sauce, and so is unable to appreciate > why his own cooking was better than Hermione's. So now let > me ask you: who do you think is the better student? Of course Hermione is a better student; she's the exemplary *student*. As to who is a better potionmaker, it's hard to tell from their classes (which are not exactly fair tests given Snape's and Slughorn's temperaments), but we know that Hermione did better on the O.W.L. Backing off from the ultimate question, I think it's sort of funny and definitely telling that you say Harry would be "unable to appreciate why his own cooking was better" simply because he didn't understand the theory. Both cooking and potionmaking can be and typically are evaluated based upon the results, not theory or method. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. > About rewarding creativity, now. Slughorn doesn't reward > Harry's creativity for itself: he rewards it because it > worked! My point exactly. Slughorn is perfectly comfortable thinking that Harry deviated from the instructions, so long as the result was superior. That proves that he is not looking for students to get the best possible result out of a flawed method; he is looking for the best possible result period. > So it's not the creativity in itself that Slughorn is > after. What he's rewarding is the fact that Harry > supposedly took a bet and won. What he thinks happened > is that Harry thought "hum! I think if I do this or > that, the potion might come off better", and he dared > trying it even though that could ruin the potion > entirely.... I think you were closer to discerning Slughorn's objective in the prior paragraph. He is rewarding successful results, not risktaking. Otherwise, as you point out, he should have been just as pleased when Ernie tried his own concoction and failed. -- Matt From ibchawz at yahoo.com Tue Sep 6 16:17:43 2005 From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 16:17:43 -0000 Subject: Killing tears the soul apart redux. WAS: Re: Snape's penance? In-Reply-To: <700201d40509051205790ea739@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139672 Kemper Wrote: To add to the discussion... Is taking the life just physical? What about the victim's soul? Is destroying a soul evil? What about part of it? Dumbledore destroys Salazar's Ring that contained part (my guess is half) of his original soul given the Ring was the first Horcrux. Dumbledore destroys part of Tom Riddle's soul. Is Dumbledore wrong? He destroyed the Ring, but it wasn't in self-defense. Of course, it could be argued that it was a pre-emptive strike. Any thoughts? ibchawz responds: What about Harry destroying the Tom Riddle's diary in COS? I thought the diary was the first Horcrux (thus containing the first part of TR's soul). He essentially killed the almost re-born Riddle to save Ginny's life by destroying the diary. Yet Dumbledore tells Harry that he is still pure of heart. My question is: What happens to the soul fragment once the Horcurx is destroyed? Is that part of the soul destroyed? Is it released to rejoin with the original person to whom the soul belongs? Could it be released to go to "the next great adventure"? ibchawz From Sherry at PebTech.net Tue Sep 6 16:42:58 2005 From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 16:42:58 -0000 Subject: looks determining character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139673 Sherry wrote: > Isn't the young Tom riddle described as handsome? Didn't he have > a way of charming everyone around him, except for Dumbledore? I > remember that, because I felt kind of squeamish at the > descriptions of his charm and good looks. Amontillada responds: I believe that young Tom was described as very handsome--taking after his father, the charmer. There's been no reference to his using his looks to seduce people physically, but he might very well have used his appearance as part of the overall image he deliberately presented in his youthful days, when he was searching for potential allies/tools. But Dumbledore wasn't taken in by looks, any more than he was of other external projected images. Hickengruendler wrote: > the Dursleys, who in their features are complete > caricatures, are horrid, Amontillada: The Dursleys are an outstanding example of characters who are portrayed as Harry sees them--and in some of the worst examples of their mistreatment of him, to boot. Hickengruendler wrote: > the background Slytherins and Death Eaters > all resemble trolls (might be because they are all inbred, like > the Gaunts), Sirius' mother is a remarkably old and ugly witch Amontillada: Her family, being proudly "pure blood" as it is or was, was probably also heavily inbred. Hickengruendler wrote: > On the other hand, both Molly and > Neville, who seem to be a bit on the chubby side, are always > described very carefully. It are only the bad characters, like > Draco or Pansy, who call them "fat", and they are nonetheless > pretty normal looking, in contrast to many villains. Amontillada: This reflects the fact, which others have already posted, that we tend to use the word "fat" mostly for people we dislike, while applying other adjectives to people we like. I don't think of Harry calling Neville "fat", but I can imagine Draco calling Crabbe or Goyle "fat," showing the contempt he feels for them. Sherry wrote: > I know there's been talk about Ginny being beautiful, but is she? > I don't even remember that at all. Hickengruendler wrote: > Seeing that about every character called her beautiful, I think > it's fair game to say that she is. Amontillada: It may also reflect the extent of change to her appearance as she's grown from a little girl into a young woman. Amontillada From zanelupin at yahoo.com Tue Sep 6 17:49:56 2005 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:49:56 -0000 Subject: Possible source of DD's hand injury In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139674 Kizor wrote: > DD's destruction of the ring Horcrux was apparently difficult, > dangerous and required extreme measures. > I therefore suggest that DD committed the deed by sticking the ring > through the veil - while holding it in his hand, which from that > point forth looked dead and didn't heal at all. KathyK: Interesting. My main question about this would be, why would Dumbledore need to hold onto the ring? Why not just toss it through and be done with it? What advantage was there to holding onto it and losing the use of his hand versus just losing the ring altogether? If putting the ring through the veil destroyed the horcrux, there doesn't seem to me any real need to hold onto it. He doesn't exactly need the ring to show Harry as proof that horcruxes exist or that LV is using special keepsakes to store parts of his soul. Harry's seen the memories, the diary, and trusts Dumbledore. Unless Dumbledore was unsure the veil would do the trick, and examining the ring after it crossed the veil was the only way to be certain Voldemort's soul was no longer there. KathyK, begging forgiveness if she's missed something right out of canon as she's yet to read HBP for a second time. For shame. ;-) From law at phuked.co.uk Tue Sep 6 17:39:17 2005 From: law at phuked.co.uk (biggee_87) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:39:17 -0000 Subject: Voldemorts snake Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139675 Do any of you think it's possible that the snake Harry freed at the start of PS/SS is Nagini, Voldermort's snake? Im sorry if anyone has posted this before I have checked but couldn't find anything.The one thing I've noticed from JK's books is that almost every thing has a meaning, granted its sometimes to throw us off a little, but I think there could be something more to this than meets the eye. I know this snake was a brazilian boa bred in captivity, but maybe on being freed she met Voldermort. biggee_87 From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Sep 6 19:06:48 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:06:48 -0000 Subject: Voldemorts snake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139676 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "biggee_87" wrote: >I know this snake was a brazilian boa bred in captivity, but maybe > on being freed she met Voldermort. zgirnius: And there is your answer, I believe. We know from Nagini's attack on Arthur Weasley that she is venomous. Boa constrictors are not, they kill their prey by squeezing them. From RoxyElliot at aol.com Tue Sep 6 19:49:36 2005 From: RoxyElliot at aol.com (RoxyElliot at aol.com) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 15:49:36 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldemorts snake Message-ID: <105.67f4cc15.304f4cd0@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139677 In a message dated 9/6/2005 1:54:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, law at phuked.co.uk writes: I know this snake was a brazilian boa bred in captivity, but maybe on being freed she met Voldermort. biggee_87 I've heard this theory a couple of times, and it makes sense to me. It falls into line with my own theory that we've seen a horcrux in each book published so far. It also is another link between Harry and Voldemort. Here's an interesting question. If Harry freed Nagini does that mean that she two owes her life to Potter? Roxanne http://Caffeinatedgeekgirl.typepad.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From RoxyElliot at aol.com Tue Sep 6 19:51:11 2005 From: RoxyElliot at aol.com (RoxyElliot at aol.com) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 15:51:11 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemorts snake Message-ID: <219.87bdc33.304f4d2f@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139678 In a message dated 9/6/2005 3:07:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, zgirnius at yahoo.com writes: And there is your answer, I believe. We know from Nagini's attack on Arthur Weasley that she is venomous. Boa constrictors are not, they kill their prey by squeezing them. Voldemort could have used magic to alter her. DD hints that wizards have used magic on animals in the past. The very act of turning Nagini into a horcrux may have altered her. Roxanne http://Caffeinatedgeekgirl.typepad.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 6 20:26:41 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:26:41 -0000 Subject: Why keep the horcrux ring? (was: Possible source of DD's hand injury) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139679 KathyK: > Interesting. My main question about this would be, why would > Dumbledore need to hold onto the ring? Why not just toss it through > and be done with it? What advantage was there to holding onto it > and losing the use of his hand versus just losing the ring > altogether? SSSusan: I'm not sure I'm right about this, but... is it possible that DD wanted to hang onto it *because* he knew Slughorn would recognize it? He did, after all, want Slughorn to help them with confirmation about Tom & the horcruxes. Perhaps DD thought coming face to face with the artifact which had held one of Voldy's horcruxes (horcruces?) would prove persuasive? Or am I way off base there? ;-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Tue Sep 6 21:20:44 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 21:20:44 -0000 Subject: looks determining character In-Reply-To: <20050906152543.82398.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139680 Hickengruendler: (huge snip) In fact, the only ugly character, who is not evil, is Moaning Myrtle. Juli: How about Mad-eye Moody? He's not beautiful, or Mrs Figg, or Mundungus? I'm pretty sure neither of them are pretty, or good looking. Me (Juli) again: How about Merope Riddle??? She IS ugly, and I wouldn't consider evil, far from it actually, I think she was dumb, not very smart, but not evil. Juli From gbadams_77 at charter.net Tue Sep 6 23:26:13 2005 From: gbadams_77 at charter.net (Bev & Gary) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 16:26:13 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why keep the horcrux ring? (was: Possible source of DD's hand injury) References: Message-ID: <001801c5b33a$5f5e7c70$54e1b844@livingroom> No: HPFGUIDX 139681 KathyK: > Interesting. My main question about this would be, why would > Dumbledore need to hold onto the ring? SSSusan: I'm not sure I'm right about this, but... is it possible that DD wanted to hang onto it *because* he knew Slughorn would recognize it? Perhaps DD thought coming face to face with the artifact which had held one of Voldy's horcruxes (horcruces?) would prove persuasive? Or am I way off base there? ;-) Beverly replies: I don't think you are off base, Susan. I believe Dumbledore wore that ring when he visited Slughorn for a reason. If you'll remember, in the pensieve scene of the "Sluggish Memory," Tom Riddle is wearing the ring in Slughorn's presence. Harry makes a note of it and thinks "Voldemort has already killed his father." So, Slughorn has seen Tom Riddle wearing the ring and even though we don't know whether or not Slughorn knows or suspects it is a horcrux, it will interest him and grab his attention. Then, to see that *same* ring on Dumbledore's hand...well, it has to register. Dumbledore doesn't do anything of that magnitude just because. There is a reason. What is that reason? To give Slughorn a little jolt to show that Dumbledore is on the trail of Voldemort and if old Sluggy has any information about Voldy, then he needs to be forthcoming. Bev. 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 a.. Visit your group "HPforGrownups" on the web. b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPforGrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From AllieS426 at aol.com Tue Sep 6 21:53:28 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 21:53:28 -0000 Subject: Arthur -- Lurking danger, or fuzzy hor d'oeuvre? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139682 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rt11guru" wrote: > Rereading HBP, I noticed the following in the account of the party > after the quidditch match: > > [Harry] walked straight into Ginny, Arnold the Pygmy Puff riding on > her shoulder and Crookshanks mewing hopefully at her heels. > ... > [Ginny] walked off to help herself to more butterbeer. Crookshants > trotted after her, his yellow eyes fixed upon Arnold. > > So is this the cat part of Crookshanks viewing Arthur as a furry > little snack, or is the kneazle part keeping a close eye on another > dangerous beastie? > Allie: I also made a mental note of that one. I'm having a hard time finding something that could be evil about a miniature Puffskein ("covered in soft, custard-coloured fur, it is a docile creature" - FB), humming and cooing and eating snot and spiders. And I don't think JKR would make *another* Weasley pet an animagus. (Been there, done that.) Obviously nothing played out in HBP, but maybe in Harry Potter and the Next Grand Adventure... From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Tue Sep 6 22:11:13 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:11:13 -0000 Subject: OFH!Snape scenario (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139683 Ceridwen wrote: > This is really giving me ideas, anyway. I'm wondering, now, if > Dumbledore hadn't been using Harry in 'the battle for Snape's >soul' > at that point, use the boy to show the man that there is more common > ground between them than he thinks. Legilimency, used in teaching > Occlumency, would certainly reveal memories to Snape. And, it did. > He even asked about the dog. As has already been mentioned, and I'm > sorry I don't remember who, that may have been a Snapish way of > acknolwedging the similarity. Saraquel: I think that you might have a good point here, Ceridwen. I think that it would be one of the things DD considered, although if DD thought about Snape finding out about Harry, he should also have considered the effect on Harry of having Snape, whom DD knows Harry hates, probing his mind. I think seeing Harry's bullied past may well have had an effect on Snape and forced him to acknowledge Harry as more of an individual, rather than simply a clone of James. There is another possibility which springs to mind, which is about Godric's Hollow. Harry will have a memory of what happened, which Snape might get access to. If DD really trusts Snape, he could be wondering if that might come to the fore. I must admit to wondering how much DD really knows about what happened at GH. He has based his whole plan on what he thinks happened there. He knows that Voldemort made horcruxes, but how much does he know about what happened in the explosion at GH? To make a plan of such monumental importance, with ignorance at the heart of it would be a huge gamble. JKR has implied in a round about way that there might have been someone else present. If there was, which side were they on, and has DD corkscrewed the information out of them? I have lurking suspicions that it might well have been Snape, whose exceedingly large nose does seem to get into most plotlines in the book. Ceridwen wrote: > And, I'm wondering now, and this is completely out of canon and spur > of the moment, if Dumbledore hadn't specified which memories to place > in the Pensieve, knowing Harry's inability to control his curiosity. Saraquel: I doubt this. I don't think that Sanpe would have complied with that. Also, DD did not necessarily know about the scene which Harry witnessed. I can't see Snape sitting down with DD and happily chatting about which ones of his appaulingly humiliating memories to pop into the pensieve for Harry to see. > There may be diversions during the course of the lessons to remove > Snape from the room (there were two, Trelawney's sacking and > Montague's return, did Dumbledore anticipate them? Or just > something? Or merely hope something would happen, based on knowledge > gained from managing a school full of rambunctious fledgling > magicals?). If Snape leaves, Harry would, if he follows his past > pattern, stick his head into the Pensieve and see the Marauders > tormenting Snape. Saraquel: No I can't go with you down that one either. Ceridwen wrote: > Anyway, could Dumbledore have been trying to use Harry on Snape in > the same way he used him on Slughorn? While I don't believe in a > fully Manipulative!Dumbledore, he is managing a war effort and has > troops beneath him, he has to manipulate to some extent to bring his > plans to fruition. And having two powerful wizards wholeheartedly in > his camp would be an asset. Saraquel: I do think that DDs desire for Harry to learn occlumency was the main motivating factor. He wasn't able to teach him himself, so that really only left one alternative - Snape. As far as we know, n- one else seems to have that particular skill. That there may have been other benefits for DD, could be in the mix, butI don't think they were primary. Saraquel Who had pointed out to her by Geoff (thanks), that, reductio ad absurdum in one of her posts, morphed itself in recutio ad absurdum - well really, how absurd :-) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 6 22:16:49 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:16:49 -0000 Subject: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort (was: Re: Draco's culpability...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139684 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Even if Draco *does* have the mark he still didn't *choose*. > > > >>a_svirn: > Now you have me totally baffled. > Betsy Hp: Yeah, I'm starting to get confused myself. Let me try and lay out exactly what I think about Draco's relationship with the Death Eaters and Voldemort. There were two questions I raised. It might be best to take them one at a time. The first is rather simple: * Is Draco a Death Eater? * Of course, that leads to a second question: What is a Death Eater? I understood a Death Eater to be one who has been marked by Voldemort with the Dark Mark upon his or her forearm. In message # 139317 a_svirn defined a Death Eater thusly: "He acknowledges Voldemort as his Master, he embraces his ideology (or at least what he thinks this ideology is), and he looks forward to the final victory of the Dark. Most importantly, he pledged himself to his cause and carries Voldemorte's orders out diligently." I agree with a_svirn's definition, however, I believe that when a Death Eater "pledges" themselves to Voldemort they receive a Dark Mark. The Dark Mark then becomes the physical manifestation of that pledge. In GoF, Snape tells Fudge: "Every Death Eater has the sign burned into him by the Dark Lord." (scholastic hardback p.710) So it follows, for me, that Voldemort must *accept* the hopeful's pledge before they can call themselves a Death Eater. Draco, in HBP, certainly seems to acknowledge Voldemort as his master. Throughout the first five books he seems to embrace the Death Eaters ideology and look forward to Voldemort's ultimate victory. However, I seriously doubt Draco was allowed to make a pledge to Voldemort and receive the Dark Mark. For one, I believe that the Mark and rank of Death Eater is seen as a distinction by Voldemort's minions. A distinction Voldemort would hardly waste on cannon fodder, IMO. Or on the child of a disgraced Death Eater, for that matter. For another, Draco is never shown to have the Mark. JKR is quite coy about the whole thing. She could have answered the question very easily during the Tower scene, but she doesn't. The fact that JKR leaves the question open leaves me to believe that he most likely *doesn't* have the Mark. After all, a Mark-less Draco would be more of a surprise to Harry. The final reason I doubt Draco has the Mark is that we are told, a few different times, that he's too young to be recruited. Of course, Voldemort is probably unconcerned with the WW's laws. But I think it's important that even if Draco *did* become a Death Eater during his sixteenth summer the WW would consider him too young to legally make that sort of decision. And I wonder if the weight of that tradition isn't felt by the Death Eaters themselves. (Would they consider the rank of Death Eater too prestigious to waste on a child?) So, to answer the first question, I believe that Draco is *not* a Death Eater. He may well have been eager to become one in the beginning of HBP, but I doubt Voldemort took him on. Which leads us into the second question: * Is Draco a volunteer? * For me, this is the most important question. It even outweighs whether or not Draco was marked as a Death Eater, IMO. Did Draco ask for his mission? Was he given a choice? The answer, to my mind, is an obvious no. Because while Draco has been steeped in the Death Eater philosophy since birth, though he's been parroting the ugliest sort of Pure-blood propaganda since the second book, though he's been set against Harry Potter from the first book, Draco is not a fool. And he's certainly not foolhardy (more a Gryffindor trait, that). I cannot, for the life of me, imagine Draco eagerly volunteering to kill Dumbledore. Think up a new Death Eater fight song? Sure! Put together some really neat posters? Draco's your guy. Annoy the hell out of Harry Potter and throw a monkey wrench into all of his plans? Draco would be there with bells on. But assassinate the WW's most powerful wizard? The Draco of the first five books would take one giant step *backwards*. It is painfully clear to all who knew the plan that Draco was not expected to succeed. That was the entire impetus for the meeting in chapter two of HBP, "Spinner's End". Draco would either attempt to kill Dumbledore and die in the attempt (thereby punishing Lucius). Or he'd attempt to kill Dumbledore, fail, and get killed by Voldemort (thereby punishing Lucius). Win-win for Voldemort; lose- lose for the Malfoy family. Since Voldemort's main goal was punishing Lucius, I seriously doubt Draco was given a choice in the matter. I doubt Draco was given a chance to say no. We are told by Bellatrix that Draco is excited when he first receives his assignment. And I believe her. I can totally buy that Voldemort and Bellatrix gave the best spin possible and seduced Draco into thinking killing Dumbledore would be a breeze. Especially since Draco has been raised to believe Voldemort is the best thing since flying brooms. Because, while I don't think Draco is foolhardy I do think he was naive, especially when it came to Voldemort and the Death Eaters. Draco certainly puts a good spin on his assignment to his fellow Slytherin's on the train to Hogwarts. And he's certainly focused on his goal, sacrificing quidditch and his grades to the task he's been given. But the blush comes off the rose fairly quickly into the game, I think. By the first trip to Hogsmeade Draco starts making flailing attempts to kill Dumbledore. (Dumbledore, himself, describes them as rather feeble attempts.) And his usual swagger is gone before Christmas break. Even Harry notices that Draco is a mess. [It's interesting to me that Draco's major effort is fixing the Vanishing Cabinet. It has nothing to do with killing anybody, but that's the work he throws himself into.] After Christmas Voldemort has to resort to base threats to keep Draco moving on his assignment. If Draco fails not only his life is forfeit, but his family's as well. So much for "diligently" carrying out Voldemort's orders. And I'll bet by the time Draco's sobbing in the boys' room he's not so keen on Voldemort's ultimate success, either. So, in answer to the second question, I believe Draco is *not* a volunteer; he's been assigned his task. And though he may have wanted to serve Voldemort in some fashion before HBP, this is not the service he would have chosen. By the end of HBP I think Draco wants nothing to do with Voldemort or his Death Eaters. Which should have interesting repercussions in book 7. Betsy Hp, who apologizes for the length and hopes this states her view more clearly From iam.kemper at gmail.com Tue Sep 6 22:45:10 2005 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 15:45:10 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Killing tears the soul apart redux. WAS: Re: Snape's penance? In-Reply-To: References: <700201d40509051205790ea739@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <700201d405090615457d737c4e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139685 On 9/6/05, ibchawz wrote: > > ibchawz: > > What about Harry destroying the Tom Riddle's diary in COS? I thought > the diary was the first Horcrux (thus containing the first part of TR's > soul). He essentially killed the almost re-born Riddle to save Ginny's > life by destroying the diary. Yet Dumbledore tells Harry that he is > still pure of heart. > > My question is: What happens to the soul fragment once the Horcurx is > destroyed? > > Is that part of the soul destroyed? Is it released to rejoin with the > original person to whom the soul belongs? Could it be released to go > to "the next great adventure"? Kemper now If it does rejoin the body, I think the soul is still split from the original. However, I don't think it 'rejoins' the body at all. I wondered earlier in the thread whether destroying the soul is wrong/evil. But after I posted it, I started wondering if it was even possible to destroy the soul. What is the soul? I don't know, but I'm going to presume, as there's an absence of proof, that the soul is energy. According to the Conservation Law of Energy: energy is neither created nor destroyed. Energy can be converted, though: Potential Energy to Kinetic Energy, Electrical Energy to Heat Energy to Mechanical Energy, or other combinations. This does not mean that Energy can't be divided. Say Voldemort has an apple (soul), Voldemort murders somebody and his apple (soul) is splits in half. Voldemort holds together the split apple (soul) out in front of him. If the two halves fell, the kinetic energy would be, to make it easy, 1 unit of energy. If, however, Voldemort dropped only one of the halves of the apple (soul), the falling half apple (soul) would have a 1/2 unit of energy. So if it's not possible to destroy energy, and therefore any part of the soul. What happens to the parts of Voldemort's soul that were in the Diary and the Ring? I think those soul parts returned to their energy source. Not Voldemort... THE source: whatever that source may be: God, the Universe, Anything. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Tue Sep 6 23:05:28 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:05:28 -0000 Subject: Sirius' declaration of loyalty in the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139687 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > Magda: > > > What I am objecting to is the over-the-topness of a declaration > > > like "you should have died for us like we would have died for > > > you". If you're going to make that kind of statement about > > > anyone, you'd better have thought long and hard about that > > > person, seriously considered their weak points, their flaws, > > > their blind spots, everything about that person that might cause > > > them to let you down in the worst possible way at the worst > > > possible time. Not just because you slept in the same dorm for > > > seven years, gave each other dumb nicknames and did pranks > > > together. Saraquel: Complete snipping of excellent posts in a very interesting thread. But I also want to point something else out here, that doesn't seem to have been mentioned. At the time Sirius is talking about a state of war existed. Your friends were more than just those whom you had a personal bond with, your friends were anyone who was on your side. You weren't just dying to save your personal friends, you were dying for the cause as well. If the cause was lost, then you all your friends were lost. Although I admit, that it appears that Sirius was talking in this context about the 4 Marauders, I think it is very important to put this in context. The Order had seen many of their co-fighters slaughtered, dying in and for the cause. In times of war the odds are pushed to the extremes along with emotions. Everyone needs to feel that they can trust those around them with their lives, they need to feel that anyone would give their life to save others. That is the role of a soldier - to be willing to sacrifice your life so that others may live theirs. No wonder Sirius was so angry. At that time, everyone of the Order must have been expecting to die and wondering if it would be their turn today. Knowing that there was a spy around must have torn them apart in a situation where trust and togetherness was paramount. Sirius took that on board, he had thought it through, he was prepared to die, and, I suspect, prepared to die, not only for those people he really liked, but for anyone who adhered to the cause they were all fighting for. He suspected that Lupin was the spy, but he did not know for sure. I think that his need to believe that everyone around him was true would have battled with the suspicion of treachery. Sirius is the sort of person who has so much faith in himself and placed so much importance on the relationship he had with the other Marauders, that he would find it very difficult to suspect that they were the spies. If the crunch came, and there was any doubt, I think Sirius is the sort of person who would prefer to die mistaken in thinking loyalty was intact, than to risk, being in any way responsible for the death of someone who might turn out to have been innocent. Saraquel From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Sep 6 23:18:51 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:18:51 -0000 Subject: Nagini, Snape, and Harry During Occlumency (& comments to Elsye) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139688 vmonte: I reread the Occlumency lessons in OOTP and I noticed that Harry asks Snape some very good questions. Harry's heart was pumping fast again. None of this added up. "But why does Professor Dumbledore want me to stop it?" he asked abruptly. "I don't like it much, but it's been useful, hasn't it? I mean...I saw that snake attack Mr. Weasley and if I hadn't, Professor Dumbledore wouldn't have been able to save him, would he? Sir?" Snape stared at Harry for a few moments, still tracing his mouth with his finger. When he spoke again,it was slowly and deliberately, as though he weighed every word... "the vision you had shortly before Christmas represented such a powerful incursion upon the Dark Lord's thoughts--" "I saw inside the snake's head, not his?..." "How come I saw through the snake's eyes if it's Voldemort's thoughts I'm sharing?" "Do not say the Dark Lord's name!" spat Snape. ..."You seem to have visited the snake's mind because that was where the Dark Lord was at that particular moment," snarled Snape. "He was possessing the snake at the time and so you dreamed you were inside it too..." "And Vol--he--realized I was there?" "It seems so," said Snape coolly. "How do you know?" said Harry urgently. "Is this just Professor Dumbledore guessing, or--?" "I told you," said Snape, rigid in his chair, his eyes slits, "to call me 'sir.'" (p533, OOTP) I think that Voldemort accessed his soul piece to manipulate Nagini. He was able to control her because a piece of his soul was inside. Doesn't this mean that Harry could potentially control Voldemort and Nagini too? _______________ Elsye wrote: He is an exteremely powerful wizard. He correctly identified the curse Quirrel was using (McGonagall was clueless) and was successfully using the countercurse We have been told any number of times that he is a superb Occlumens perhaps the best in the world considering he has been lying for at least three years to Voldemort, Dumbledore or both. And I doubt Voldemort picks incompetent people to be Death Eaters. Even weak grovelling Pettigrew was able to blast a street full of 13 Muggles with his wand behind his back. vmonte: LoL Elsye, I almost wanted to smoke a cigarette after your Snape comments. But, you know what? I think that what you like about Snape is the fact that you think he IS a bad boy. At least be honest about it! :) Elsye: I hate to use your own quote against you but: JKR:However, everyone should keep their eye on Snape, I'll just say that because there is *more to him* than meets the eye...... vmonte: The quote right before is: JK Rowling: Yes but you shouldn't think him too nice. It is worth keeping an eye on old Severus definitely! If the first sentence read: "Yes but you shouldn't think him too bad... Then I would agree with your comments. Elsye: Might I remind you that we know Dumbledore was an excellent Occlumens, and we have canon to support speculations that Lupin was too... "An odd, closed expression appeared on his face..." Surely youre not suggesting DD and Lupin were Death Eaters? Heh heh...that would change interpretation of the Lighting Struck Tower at the end of HBP wouldnt it?? vmonte: You are right about DD & Lupin knowing Occlumency, but I don't think that they use it as much as we think they do, and probably only under extreme circumstances. (Lupin might need to use it more because he doesn't want people to know that he is a werewolf.) Snape is probably always closed off. Vivian From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Sep 6 23:24:18 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:24:18 -0000 Subject: Replies - Academic Dishonesty ; Filius can't Duel ; Grindelwald and Horcruxes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139689 Replies to Lady Idingo, Ginger, and Geoff on various topics. --- Lady Indigo asks: > If [Harry] wasn't doing anything wrong [in using the HBP > book], why the coverup? The lying? The taking the punishment > without arguing with Snape or appealing to Dumbledore? I've > seen these questions get asked a few times now and nobody's > even bothered to answer them. Valky: I gave an answer earlier to one of those questions Lady Indigo. IMO Harry kept and hid the HBP's book because he saw it as a unique resource. I explained it in more detail in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139563 Scroll down to the last part of the mesage if you want to skip straight to the answer. Matt: Accepting the punishment? I think Harry felt he deserved it. He would never have consciously chosen to do what he did to Draco, and was appalled at himself. Valky: I agree absolutely with Matt. Ginger wrote: > Flitwick: > There's been a lot of discussion about FF's deuling ability. Was he > a champ? The quote comes to mind: "Judge me by my size, do you? > And well you should not." Valky: This is a good quote, but as the sole determined flagger of Flitty Flitwick who can't duel, to date, I have to defend my position and say that none of the consideration is based on his size. I feel the argument that Flitwick is not a dueller is backed solidly by his actions, and the actions of the people who know him. The canons lined up side by side on the Flitty Flitwick's maiden voyage are: 1. Filius has been known to squeal, titter and burst into tears on occasion when Dark Forces are about. 2. Filius was rumoured to be a Duelling Champ at a suspiciously convenient time for someone who wasn't a duelling champ to be rumoured to be one... :S 3. Filius was chosen over children by MacGonagall (Children who incidently have proven themselves in battle before) to be a Messenger rather than a fighter when fighters were clearly needed. 4. Filius PS/SS stone protection was far less ominous and frightening than the others. In fact it was positively sporting and innocuous even. Foreshadowing a light touch. It's not well armed really, but at the moment I can't find anything solid enough to break the hull. > Valky: > > Leaving us with only one thing left to find - What made > > Grindelwald immortal. We only have canon on one method of pursuing > > immortality so let's call it that, Horcruxes. > > Geoff: > Where are we told that Grindelwald was immortal? And, if so, where > is the dear chap now? > > IIRC we are told only that Dumbledore defeated him in 1945. Valky: In the paragraph before this I worked on a canon basis for it. We aren't told it, but we are told that Voldemort only fears death and Dumbledore, and that Voldemort is immortal because of Horcruxes. I used some set theory to get to the point where I could say if these are the parameters then it looks (I think) closed under dot operator and "Grindelwald was immortal" is in the set. I can certainly appreciate that not everyone will see it as a sound assumption, and certainly noone has to agree that we can apply abstract mathematical analysis to Harry Potter (I am just in the habit of doing it to everything, learning as I go along) but I am not claiming that its canon. Does that Help? :) In terms of where is the dear old chap now, the theory is that Grindelwald is definitely gone and DD did it hence why Voldemort is scared of Dumbledore. Valky From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Sep 7 00:02:03 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 00:02:03 -0000 Subject: OFH!Snape scenario (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139690 Saraquel: > I think he likes the solitary life too much his > books (When I read the chapter that described his > house, I just thought, how many houses have I been > in like that, friends not into money, but loving > knowledge) his study and his creative inventiveness. houyhnhnm: I would love to know what the Hat made of Snape. I'm betting it took its time sorting him into Slytherin. Saraquel: > Essentially, to me, Snape is torn between his > preference for DDs `democratic' (for want of a > better word) world over LVs autocracy and his > desire for the mysteries of the dark arts. > He has no allegiance to Voldemort (though the > exact reason why IMO still remains a mystery). houyhnhnm: It does, but one can speculate with at least a little support from canon. We know that Dumbledore regards Voldemort's blood sacrifice to get into the inner cave as crude. Combining that with what we have seen of LV's tendency to brag and run off at the mouth, it is not hard to imagine that "crude" is a pretty fair general characterization of Voldemort. Snape, on the other hand, is subtle. His mind is "a complex and many layered thing". Snape has an almost prissy regard for lawn order. He's still carrying an enormous chip around on his shoulder over the fact that the rule-breaking, DD's trust-betraying Marauders were the fair-haired sons, while School Boy Severus (who kept his promise to DD not to reveal Lupin's secret for somewhere around 18 years) is treated like the bastard step child. His biggest gripe about Harry is the way Harry is allowed to get away with rule breaking. So, Snape could kill for revenge (or thought he could--we don't know for sure) or to bring about a New World Order. But killing for fun? ("Half the Muggle killings back when You-Know-Who was in power were done for fun".) I think it would disgust him. Marauders cubed. Saraquel: > OotP > [...] > Then DD gives him the task of giving Harry occlumency lessons, > [...] > Maybe there is something to the prophecy after all, > maybe this kid Harry does have real power, maybe > there is a chance that he could conquer Voldemort. > Oh yes, he's very interested, and he wants to learn more. houyhnhnm: The answer to the Snape question hinges on Snape's behavior with regard to the prophecy, IMO. Not so much Snape's alerting the Order to the fact that Harry has been lured to the Ministry of Magic, as the fact that the Order *knows* about LV's designs on the prophecy in the summer preceeding the fifth year, falsifies the ESE!Snape theory conclusively as far as I'm concerned. I mean getting his hands on the prophecy was the most important thing LV had going on, so important he delayed starting WWWII for a whole year while he attempted to get ahold of it. But what is the effect of Snape's behavior WRT the prophecy on OFH!Snape? It seems that OFH!Snape would be *very* curious to know the full contents of the prophecy, curious enough, I would think, even to help LV obtain it. When I first read the passages in OotP describing the Occlumency lessons, I thought as Harry thought, "None of this added up". Harry's scar kept hurting during and after the lessons. I too wondered if Snape were not softening Harry up for Voldemort. But if you read what Dumbledore says about the Occlumency lessons and about what he did and didn't want Harry to know, at the end of OotP, then go back and read the Occlumency lesson scenes again, it appears that Snape is playing it very straight. So, if he knows the rest of the prophecy, how did he find out? And if he doesn't, why isn't he trying to find out? He's a real curious guy, generally. My mind keeps going round and round on this one and I can't come up with anything. Saraquel: > Through Harry's action of saving Snape, Snape > will realise the power of love that DD was talking > about, but Snape never saw for himself. When he > sees it, he will realise why Harry is special and > go through his own process of realisation. houyhnhnm: >From your lips (or fingertips) to Rowling's ear. From jmrazo at hotmail.com Wed Sep 7 00:06:29 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 00:06:29 -0000 Subject: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort (was: Re: Draco's culpability...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139691 > Betsy Hp: > Yeah, I'm starting to get confused myself. Let me try and lay > out exactly what I think about Draco's relationship with the Death > Eaters and Voldemort. > > There were two questions I raised. It might be best to take them one > at a time. The first is rather simple: > > * Is Draco a Death Eater? * > For one, I believe that the Mark and rank of Death Eater is seen as > a distinction by Voldemort's minions. A distinction Voldemort would > hardly waste on cannon fodder, IMO. Or on the child of a disgraced > Death Eater, for that matter. I don't know about that. Seems like just about every human servant of Voldemort in the series has been a death eater. I see DE's as just generic servants of Voldemort, personally, and not the elite. Storm Troopers if you will. > For another, Draco is never shown to have the Mark. JKR is quite > coy about the whole thing. She could have answered the question > very easily during the Tower scene, but she doesn't. The fact that > JKR leaves the question open leaves me to believe that he most > likely *doesn't* have the Mark. After all, a Mark-less Draco would > be more of a surprise to Harry. Harry mentions that the ward which prevents anyone other than a death eater from going up to the castle must be linked to the mark. based on the wards actions that seems like a reasonable assumption. Since Draco made it through, he must have the mark. also, guys get dressed around each other all the time. I can't imagine Draco being able to talk up his actions as much as he did without someone in Slytherin seeing. And being Slytherins, of course they would need to see. they would never take his word for it. my two pennies phoenixgod2000 From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 00:14:56 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 00:14:56 -0000 Subject: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort (was: Re: Draco's culpability...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139692 > Betsy Hp: > > In GoF, Snape tells Fudge: > > "Every Death Eater has the sign burned into him by the Dark Lord." > (scholastic hardback p.710) > > So it follows, for me, that Voldemort must *accept* the hopeful's > pledge before they can call themselves a Death Eater. > > Draco, in HBP, certainly seems to acknowledge Voldemort as his > master. Throughout the first five books he seems to embrace the > Death Eaters ideology and look forward to Voldemort's ultimate > victory. However, I seriously doubt Draco was allowed to make a > pledge to Voldemort and receive the Dark Mark. a_svirn: Our discussion started when I wrote that Darco was "for all intends and purposes a Death Eater". Meaning not literally, but as good as. Well, the above quoted snippet from your post seems to point in that direction too. But if you insist on the technicality let's say, that he is a "Voldemort's man through and through". Just like Harry who wasn't allowed to join the Order is Dumbledore's. Personally, I don't see how it makes things any better for him. > Betsy Hp: >> > * Is Draco a volunteer? * > > For me, this is the most important question. It even outweighs > whether or not Draco was marked as a Death Eater, IMO. a_svirn: And IMO. > Betsy Hp: Did Draco > ask for his mission? Was he given a choice? > > The answer, to my mind, is an obvious no. Because while Draco has > been steeped in the Death Eater philosophy since birth, though he's > been parroting the ugliest sort of Pure-blood propaganda since the > second book, though he's been set against Harry Potter from the > first book, Draco is not a fool. And he's certainly not foolhardy > (more a Gryffindor trait, that). I cannot, for the life of me, > imagine Draco eagerly volunteering to kill Dumbledore. a_svirn: You substitute one thing for another, Betsy. I never said that Draco volunteered to kill Dumbledore. I maintain, however that he did choose to serve Voldemort. Whereupon he got his first assignment ? to kill Dumbledore. Just like Harry who volunteered to help Dumbledore with Horcrux-hunting and then was given a horrifying "assignment": to force-feed his mentor with some ghastly potion. So it is with Draco: first he committed himself to the service and then tried to serve for the best of his ability. They are the two different things and I don't understand why you are persistently trying to confuse them. As for Draco's not being a fool ? it's debatable. Generally he is not, but when Voldemort was concerned he certainly laboured under some very dangerous delusions. Betsy Hp: > It is painfully clear to all who knew the plan that Draco was not > expected to succeed. That was the entire impetus for the meeting in > chapter two of HBP, "Spinner's End". a_svirn: It is also "painfully clear" that for one person concerned it wasn't clear at all. Namely, for Draco himself. Betsy Hp: Draco would either attempt to > kill Dumbledore and die in the attempt (thereby punishing Lucius). > Or he'd attempt to kill Dumbledore, fail, and get killed by > Voldemort (thereby punishing Lucius). Win-win for Voldemort; lose- > lose for the Malfoy family. a_svirn: Can you support this statement with "canon"? I seem to remember Snape saying that if Draco succeeded he would be honoured above all others. Not that it belongs to this discussion at all. Whatever Voldemort's plans concerning Draco might have been, Draco had no clue about them, so they couldn't weight with him in any way. Betsy Hp: > [It's interesting to me that Draco's major effort is fixing the > Vanishing Cabinet. It has nothing to do with killing anybody, but > that's the work he throws himself into.] a_svirn: Actually it has *everything* to do with killing anybody. As Draco knew only to well and we, readers, too know. Betsy Hp: > After Christmas Voldemort has to resort to base threats to keep > Draco moving on his assignment. If Draco fails not only his life is > forfeit, but his family's as well. So much for "diligently" carrying > out Voldemort's orders. And I'll bet by the time Draco's sobbing in > the boys' room he's not so keen on Voldemort's ultimate success, > either. a_svirn: Yes, well, I quite agree. But it only shows that by that time Draco came to regret his choice. It doesn't negate the fact that he did it. Betsy Hp: > So, in answer to the second question, I believe Draco is *not* a > volunteer; he's been assigned his task. And though he may have > wanted to serve Voldemort in some fashion before HBP, this is not > the service he would have chosen. a_svirn: There is absolutely no basis for opposing the two. Volunteers *are* being assigned tasks. One volunteers to go and work in some obscure mission thousands miles away from one's home and then one is given one's first task: for instance, to clean the bathrooms. Quite possibly, also not what one would have chosen. But since one made a commitment one has to carry on. Betsy Hp: By the end of HBP I think Draco > wants nothing to do with Voldemort or his Death Eaters. a_svirn: It's true but not only for Draco. Most Death Eaters with the exception of Bellatrix and possibly Grayback would have been better off without their Lord and Master. From lolita_ns at yahoo.com Tue Sep 6 20:57:23 2005 From: lolita_ns at yahoo.com (lolita_ns) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:57:23 -0000 Subject: NAGUAL (was: Re: Voldemorts snake) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139693 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "biggee_87" wrote: > Do any of you think it's possible that the snake Harry freed at the start of PS/SS is Nagini, > Voldermort's snake? /.../ I know this snake was a brazilian boa bred in captivity, but maybe > on being freed she met Voldermort. Lolita: I don't think that this snake is Nagini. First of all, that would mean that she's been with LV for how long - 5 or 6 years? And DD says that she is the only thing LV is fond of. I don't think that anyone could make their way into LV's graces in such a short time, not even a snake. Second, LV was in Albania at the time - how did the snake end up there? Jumping over the Channel and slithering across Europe to the Balkans? She may have been taken by LV during the PS adventure, you could argue. But no snake is ever mentioned in connection to either Quirrel or Quirrelmort (and it would have been quite crowded inside Quirrel's turban if he had kept her there, as well :) ), and in the end of the whole unholy affair, Vapormort made a beeline for escape, without any snake being mentioned harrying after him. It would mean that the snake would have to follow him to Albania, again (rewind to jumping the Channel & slithering through Europe thing again). AND, Harry has SEEN Nagini. There is no dialogue in 3200+ pages of the saga along the lines of: Harry (to Nagini): Hang on! Haven't I seen you somewhere? Nagini: I have no idea what you're talking about. I haven't got a clue as to who you are. I have never ever in my life been in a zoo (oops!) Biggie also wrote: The one thing I've noticed from JK's books is that almost every thing has a meaning, > granted its sometimes to throw us off a little, but I think there could be something more to > this than meets the eye. > Lolita: Yep. Precisely. The Zoo Snake prepares us for Harry's parseltongue. There's been something fishy about that snake from the moment it winked at Harry, for snakes haven't got eyelids - when one reconsiders it, it must have been the same thing that allows for Harry to hear snakes speak, since snakes don't have vocal cords either. I guess it's some kind of mental transmission that makes Harry interpret both snakes' 'speech' and 'gestures' in terms familiar to him (i.e. voice & wink). But delving deeper into this would mean crafting a whole theory on how the parseltongue actually works, and I'm not prepared to go there at the moment. In short - The Zoo snake is the first instance of Harry's ability to understand snakes. Pure and simple. HOWEVER, an interesting thing about Nagini popped into my head as I was reading Frazer's The Golden Bough for my paper on The Phenomenon Of Harry Potter. While trying to find folklore bases for Horcruxes, I found the chapters in Frazer which refer to the External Soul. I'm sorry, I'll have to babble a bit on anthropology, but please bear with me, cause I find it quite interesting, once we eventually get to the point I'm trying to convey :) Be patient, please. It goes like this - many primitive peoples across the world (from Russia to South America) have had the notion of external soul - the soul which does not have to be inside a person, but is bound somewhere outside of him - from his body's peripheries such as nails or hair ( The Old Testament's Samson, anyone?) to inanimate objects (the best example is the Russian folktale on Kocshei the Deathless) to plants to ANIMALS. As long as this external soul is safe, the person it belongs to cannot die - you can do to him whatever you want, he'll remain deathless. However, if the external soul were to be destroyed, the person dies too. Now, the animal part is interesting, since it is the basis for Totemism, most usually connected with African and South American peoples. This external soul in animal works in a way to make the said animal a kind of part of the person, but outside him/her (I think this also partly inspired Pullman's Daimons, for instance), so that it becomes a kind of a doppelganger to the person in question. And now, finally I come to the point where I can connect this whole anthropology lecture to Nagini. This Totem, this Doppelganger, this extternal soul is called NAGUAL by one of the South American aboriginal peoples. This whole issue was dealt with by Kastaneda in his crazy-mushrooms induced babblings about Don Juan, but I think that it may have inspired JKR as well. Whatever her artistic flaws as a writer, Rowling DOES know her folklore. Any thoughts on this? Cheers, Lolita PS I AM quite aware that 'naga' means 'snake' in Sanskrit, so you do not have to point that to me, thanx. From donjokat.kat at verizon.net Wed Sep 7 00:18:02 2005 From: donjokat.kat at verizon.net (Katharine) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:18:02 -0400 Subject: looks determining character References: <001001c5b27e$8287d2d0$ea3d79a5@pensive> Message-ID: <001101c5b341$9ce95270$c533fea9@DonJoKat> No: HPFGUIDX 139694 Sherry Gomes I know there's been talk about Ginny being beautiful, but is she? I don't even remember that at all. Katharine: As Hickengruendler says, every character does describe Ginny as gorgeous--even blood-traitor-hating Blaise Zabini admits that she is pretty attractive. And in addition to what everyone says about Ginny, there's JK's constant descriptions of Ginny shaking around her long mane of luxurious, flowing, flame-red hair--as if Ginny were in a shampoo commercial or something. JK makes a point of showing Ginny as the pretty and poplular girl before Harry goes for her. -Katharine From susanwob at yahoo.com Tue Sep 6 19:26:10 2005 From: susanwob at yahoo.com (Susan O'Bones) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:26:10 -0700 Subject: The Vanishing Cabinets (2) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139695 Things I'm wondering about those Vanishing Cabinets. Probably a bunch of unanswerable questions, but here goes: The broken Vanishing Cabinet, that Malfoy repaired in HBP, the same one that Fred & George stuffed Montague into the year before -- is that the same one that Peeves wrecked in CoS? He smashed a "vanishing cabinet" in the room directly above Filch's office while Harry was in there, about to be disciplined for some evil deed (tracking mud I think). Peeves was egged into it by Nearly Headless Nick, who was trying to get Harry off by diverting Filch. The diversion worked. If it is the same one, then was it still functional at the beginning of that school year? When Harry jumped into the one in Borgin & Burkes to hide from the Malfoys, could he have been transported into Hogwarts? Why wasn't he? If the B&B partner cabinet at Hogwarts is not the same one broken by Peeves, but was another one & was already broken, then what about the one that Peeves broke -- does that one also have a partner somewhere else? Up until the vanishing cabinet at Hogwarts got broken, it and its partner in B&B would have been what they became again in HBP -- a direct route into the school from B&B, a very Dark and nasty place. For all the magical charms and enchantments that have always been protecting Hogwarts, here is a HUGE security hole. What in the name of Merlin was that thing doing in the school? How long has it been there? How did it get there? Who brought it in? Dark and nasty wizards, no doubt. Lucius Malfoy and his ilk. Tom Riddle, maybe even. Did they ever -- or were they ever going to -- use it for anything? Did Dumbledore know about it? How about the house elves? And what else do the house elves know? Has anybody ever chummed up to them enough to learn more Hogwarts secrets? Now that the Good Guys know about these cabinets, can they snag the one out of B&B and move it somewhere nicer/safer? Arthur Weasley could go in there on a raid and grab it. Bring it to Grimmauld Place maybe? The Burrow? That would give Our Team a quick way in & out of the school, so they don't have to resort to thestrals, flying cars, etc. any longer. And finally, is there any other such interesting furniture lurking about? Constant vigilance!! Susan O'Bones PS: Could somebody please tell me what ACID POPS stands for? Thanks! From donjokat.kat at verizon.net Wed Sep 7 00:54:03 2005 From: donjokat.kat at verizon.net (Katharine) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:54:03 -0400 Subject: Hermione is the star - proof was Re: Academic dishonesty References: <20050906075735.37354.qmail@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001f01c5b346$a50d44c0$c533fea9@DonJoKat> No: HPFGUIDX 139696 merylanna says: This may have led some to believe Hermoine is a grind who is dependant on rote study/memorization to succeed. But repeatedly throughout the books her native brilliance asserts itself, not just what she's memorized. Her work in transfiguration is routinely ahead of everyone else - and that involves more than memorizing a formula. She's the best spell caster in her year. She makes logical leaps frequently. It's useful that she has a massive store of learned information, but nobody is teaching her how to understand and use that information, as Hermoine does repeatedly. Katharine: You're absolutely right--Hermione has always been "clever" outside of books and learning. For example, a book didn't tell Hermione how to get past the obstacle set by Snape to guard the Stone in SS/PS--that was all Hermione's cleverness and brilliance. And it's Hermione's cleverness, along with some intuition, that allowed her to figure out that the vision Harry had that was leading him to the DoM was a trap, as it didn't make any sense for either Voldemort or Sirius to have gotten in there (though on that note, why was the Ministry so deserted at that time of day when Harry and the other DoM five arrived?) Hermione also used her intelligence to figure out the identity of the HBP, or at least get close to it. Harry would do better to listen to Hermione's smart advice, as listening to it in the past would have saved him some trouble and some lives even. -Katharine [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 01:43:49 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 01:43:49 -0000 Subject: Snape< DD, Fake!Moody, and Legilimency (Was: numerous short replies. . . .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139697 Vivian wrote: >We know that Snape has used Legimency on people before--Fake!Moody on the stairs, > Catlady responded: > This confuses me. How could Snape have used Legilimency on Fake!Moody without noticing that he was fake? Surely one's self-identity is present in one's mind all one's waking time, like a background noise? Carol adds: I've been holding on to a post on this topic (sort of) in response to colebiancardi (message 138375) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/138375 (Sorry I didn't post it sooner--three-post limit and all that) So hehr it is: Better late than never, I hope: I noticed that Snape avoids "Moody's" eyes in GoF, probably because the magical eye unnerves him and makes it impossible to do Legilimency. It's clear, too, that he doesn't know the real Moody very well or he would have suspected the identity switch. Also, Fake!Moody uses the real Moody's suspicion of ex-DE Snape to express his own antipathy for DEs who didn't go to Azkaban, which provides a good reason for his hostility to Snape without raising Snape's doubts about "Moody's" loyalty to Dumbledore. In fact, Snape thinks his own loyalty is being questioned when "Moody" claims the Auror's privilege to raid his office. ("Dumbledore trusts me!") Interestingly, Fake!Moody knows where Snape's loyalties lie, and they're not with LV (as shown again in the Foe Glass). I do think, though, that Snape reports the incident with Filch, Fake!Moody, and Harry in his invisibility cloak, along with the theft of ingredients for polyjuice potion to Dumbledore, and it becomes one of the memories in the Pensieve that DD is studying, a piece in the puzzle that DD is trying to put together. And as you say [in post 138375], DD didn't have much exposure to "Moody" [in GoF], and believing as he does in "innocent until proven guilty," I don't think he would have used Legilimency on a man he thought to be an old friend, even after "Moody" had started doing suspicious things like Transfiguring students as punishment and demonstrating the Unforgiveable Curses, actually Imperioing the students. DD must have thought that Moody had gone around the bend and was abusing the special dispensation of Aurors to use the Unforgiveable Curses on DEs by using one of them on his students. (I'm not sure the poor spiders count, but they demonstrate his indifference to suffering, as does his Crucioing them in front of the boy whose parents had been Crucio'd to insanity by DEs. We don't know then, and neither does DD, that one of those same DEs was "Moody" himself, already evil at age nineteen.) Of course, if DD or Snape had used Legilimency, the secret would have been out a lot sooner. The magical eye and the perfect disguise (a paranoid, half-crazy, DE-hating Auror) prevent that from happening. I have a long post somewhere on the clues that Dumbledore used to deduce Fake!Moody's identity but I don't have time to search for it. Carol, noting that for Snape, loyalty seems to be a personal matter, DD vs. LV, rather than a matter of devotion to a cause or group (Order vs. DEs), as indicated early on in his remark to Quirell about "where your loyalties lie," which predates the revival of the Order From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Wed Sep 7 01:45:11 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 01:45:11 -0000 Subject: Killing tears the soul apart redux. WAS: Re: Snape's penance? In-Reply-To: <105.67e8619c.304e91b7@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139698 > > Now I'll add a question for debate. If Harry destroys all Voldy's > horcruxes (with or without help), then he ends up killing Voldy > (in self defense of course), where does that leave what's left of > Voldy's soul? Would a soul in such a reduced state be able to > get beyond the veil, or whatever? Is this what Dumbledore meant > when he told Voldemort that there are worse fates than death? > > Julie > What I am puzzled about is how the horcruxes work divisionwise. Can Voldemort control how much of his soul goes into the horcrux du jour? It sounds like not; Dumbledore says that *murder* rips the soul, so he would be left with whatever pieces of whatever size the killing bestows upon him. If the ripping proceeds along the lines of mathematical division, putting half of the soul he has left into the horcrux, he would end up with an arrangement like so: http://www.katmac.cncdsl.com/horcrux.GIF Which leaves him with about 1/64th of a soul left when he faces Harry in the final battle, assuming Harry, etc., has found and destroyed all the horcruxes before he can recover them and reabsorb whatever fraction of a soul each of them contains. And Harry and Dumbledore and R.A.B. have managed to destroy the horcruxes that contain the largest fractions of soul. I should think that would leave Voldemort rather depleted, to say the least, when he has to confront Harry. --Gatta From daychele at yahoo.com Tue Sep 6 19:43:49 2005 From: daychele at yahoo.com (daychele) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:43:49 -0000 Subject: Three Broomsticks Eavesdropper Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139699 This is my first post and probably someone has already answered my question, but...in OoTP DD says of the eavesdropper that "My--our--one stroke of good fortune was that the eavesdropper was detected only a short way into the prophecy and thrown from the building." In HBP, Trelawney describes the commotion outside the door regarding the same incident, "there was that rather uncouth barman standing with Snape,..." According to DD, Snape was the one who gave the information about the prophecy to LV, who is the barman and what is his role, if any, or did I just miss it in one of the books? Maybe it's a totally moot, undeveloped observation...But does it go anywhere? daychele From ryokas at hotmail.com Wed Sep 7 02:03:11 2005 From: ryokas at hotmail.com (Miikka R.) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 02:03:11 -0000 Subject: Three Broomsticks Eavesdropper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139700 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "daychele" wrote: > who is the barman and what is > his role, if any, or did I just miss it in one of the books? Hi there. The barman's identity is not stated outright in the books but there are a number of hints, and JKR has confirmed it when asked. The bartender is goatmeister Aberforth Dumbledore, Albus' brother, and can be seen providing aid in the background here and there. - Kizor From moosiemlo at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 00:40:52 2005 From: moosiemlo at yahoo.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:40:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Not a Dark Mark In-Reply-To: <1125546339.2498.46562.m29@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20050907004052.25330.qmail@web30015.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139701 Valky wrote: > Throughout HBP Draco starts to look more and more sickly. He keeps disappearing. In Borgin and Burkes he shows Borgin something that frightens him, Harry thinks its a Dark Mark... Well it could be a Dark Mark, but since there *is* reason for doubt, then why don't we call it a Werewolf bite? > John Granger, to whom the credit for this brilliant find belongs, has written about it on his site at this link. Dumbstruck? Not really although I hadn't put it together in this context as of yet. I've been saying for six books now that Draco Malfoy was/is my prime candidate for werewolf/vampirism. And he does mention that Fenrir Greyback is a family friend. Certainly his symptoms are similar to Lupin's. Its a strong possibility. A very strong possibility. Lynda DeColores From merylanna at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 01:52:20 2005 From: merylanna at yahoo.com (Merry Kinsella) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:52:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: looks determining character In-Reply-To: <001101c5b341$9ce95270$c533fea9@DonJoKat> Message-ID: <20050907015220.51677.qmail@web30115.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139702 Katharine wrote: As Hickengruendler says, every character does describe Ginny as gorgeous--even blood-traitor-hating Blaise Zabini admits that she is pretty attractive. And in addition to what everyone says about Ginny, there's JK's constant descriptions of Ginny shaking around her long mane of luxurious, flowing, flame-red hair--as if Ginny were in a shampoo commercial or something. JK makes a point of showing Ginny as the pretty and poplular girl before Harry goes for her.<<<< merylanna says: JKR does flog Ginny's prettiness pretty hard (which could inspire another discussion about what I think is JKR's "protests-too-much" tendency toward gender stereotyping and "boy" favoring. She's awarded Harry a hottie) In HPB, I THINK, at the end, when Ginny, et al. are bopping up and down fighting the DE's, I think Ginny's opponent calls her something pretty close to "My pretty". JKR wants us to be very sure we know Ginny is gorgeous. Even the comments of her brothers on Ginny's love life is meant to let us know she's sought-after and a beauty. --------------------------------- Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 02:22:25 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 02:22:25 -0000 Subject: What is magical power and other ethereal thoughts. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139703 Saraquel: Ok, time to try and really get a grip on bodies, souls, powers, emotions and thoughts. Just what resides where, and in JKRs world, what are they made of, and how do they relate to one another? It seems it is important, for me anyway, to see if we can understand this, as it is so important when thinking about horcruxes and how Harry will be able to destroy Voldemort. Yesterday, I posted an answer to Valky http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139647 which skirted round the edges, and also in a different thread, Kemper was also speculating on the nature of the soul. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139685 So maybe the time is ripe to delve into this tangled mass, grab a handful and see what we come up with. So, this is just a starting point. What cannon evidence do we have? Magical powers It would appear that one is born with them, but they are not necessarily inherited. Although I remember a post some while back about gene pools explaining how it could be an inherited trait if it was a recessive gene, which would mean it wouldn't always appear. JKR has said (correct me if I'm wrong) that someone would *discover* magical abilities late in life ? indicating that they are latent in that person. The expression of magical power is connected at a fairly primitive level with, perhaps has it's seat in, the emotions. Hence, when Harry gets really angry with Marge, he blows her up. Also, we know in order to cast the cruciatus curse effectively, you have to mean it, and to produce a patronus you need to have a happy memory. It appears that magical power is *controlled* through the mind and specifically words ? incantations. It appears that you channel the energy this way, to serve a specific purpose. Although magic can happen without a wand, the process of directing it appears to require (in most cases) a wand, which itself has magical properties. In the cave, DD, however used his *hands* to detect magic. Also, we know that after DD lost the use of his wand hand destroying the horcrux, his magical powers were diminished, although, putting on my philosophy of science hat, I admit, correlation is not causation! We also know that Vapormort lost his body but still had his magical powers intact, even if he couldn't use most of them because he had lost his body and therefore use of his wand. Plus, Vapomort still had thought and emotion. When Riddle!Horcrux emerged, he was able to perform magic once he had a wand, indicating that magical power goes with a soul fragment. Then there is the protection of Lily's blood, which runs in Harry's veins. I t appears that a magical power resides in the blood. There is also the fact that magical powers diminish when there is depression ? Tonks and Merope. All in all, magical power seems to be all pervading. But because of Vapormort, we know it can exist without the body. The question is, is it an add-on to the soul-emotions-mind, or is it an integral part? Do muggles and wizards have the same soul-emotion-mind type, or are there innate differences? DDs comment in the cave about magic leaving traces however, seems to indicate that it can also reside in inanimate objects, which could lead to the conclusion that it is possibly a separate entity altogether. Although this would depend on exactly what DD meant by `traces'. So let's speculate that magical power is a completely separate entity floating in the ether ? or perhaps it is the ether :-) Then being a witch/wizard would imply an ability to harness this power, rather than magic actually being a power source built into you. That you had an affinity for it, and could connect with it, allowing it to flow through you ? perhaps comparable to psychic ability. This would still account for the differences in magical ability and magical inclinations. Hermione has a very powerful mind and her ability is to channel the energy very effectively through spells. Whereas Harry connects at a more fundamental level, using his emotions to direct the energy into the world. The power itself may not be good or bad, just power. It is what each individual does with it that creates good and bad, hence the emphasis on the choices you make. Now I'm wondering about the room of love in the MOM being a powerhouse, and perhaps the/a source of pure magical energy for the world. If magical energy is a separate entity, would it be possible for Harry to damage Voldemort's ability to access it, thus vanquishing him? After all that speculation, even if magical power itself were a separate entity, we still have the problem of identifying what part of individual accesses it. Saraquel: Who is wondering if she is fighting her way through thicket and bramble only to find herself at a dead end with a sheer cliff in front of her, and everyone else looking up at her from the path below, thinking, Why? From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 02:24:08 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 02:24:08 -0000 Subject: Sirius' declaration of loyalty in the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139704 > >>Magda: > > What I am objecting to is the over-the-topness of a declaration > > like "you should have died for us like we would have died for > > you". > > > >>SSSusan: > But I think the point is, for someone like Sirius (and quite > possibly James & Remus, too), he wouldn't HAVE to think about it > long & hard for him to MEAN it. > Betsy Hp: I do believe that Sirius meant his knightly statement *when he made it*. Just as Sirius believed it when he said "If you want to know what a man's like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals." (GoF scholastic hardback p.525) And then he turned around and treated his inferior, Kreacher, like so much crap. So, like any good actor (and I think the Blacks are excellent actors) Sirius believes his line while he's delivering it. The *depth* of commitment, however, is something to be questioned, I think. And really, his statement *is* an exaggeration, IMO. Sirius and James weren't willing to die for Peter. They put him into the incredibly dangerous position of Secret Keeper, where Peter would be risking *his* life for James. I think Sirius was willing to die to keep Peter's secret (that he was the Secret Keeper) safe, but in the end it was in service to James. And I think Magda is correct: the real friendship was that of James and Sirius. > >>Phoenixgod wrote: > Brotherhood. Fraternity. Friendship. These are powerful concepts > that have far more powerful hold over the male heart than you give > credit for. > > To say that Sirius, James, Remus, and Peter couldn't have > formed a bond that meant so much in seven years is just plain > wrong. And it could have been further honed during the war after > they graduated. Betsy Hp: Except we know that their bond wasn't that tight, in the end. The Marauders fractured before Peter became the Secret Keeper. Sirius (and probably James) suspected Lupin was a traitor. Lupin (on his own I imagine) worried that Sirius was the traitor. Everyone overlooked Peter, but they were certainly pointing fingers at each other. I'm not overlooking the tightness of the male bond, but I think the true bond was the one between James and Sirius. The Marauders formed on the basis of their charisma, but the inner circle, the heart of that merry band, IMO, was the friendship of James and Sirius. > > SSSusan: > > I would maintain that, with the four Marauders, it could well have > been something similar, only *stronger.* Yes, we see *a* scene > where Sirius ridicules Peter, but we also have evidence that they > did a LOT together. > > I'll grant that the level of respect for Peter may have been less > than it was among the other three, but if they didn't have ANY > respect or *liking* for him, they'd have told him to bugger off. Betsy Hp: Hmmm, see I doubt the "stonger". Because their bond failed miserably in the end The four boys *did* do everything together, but I think a lot of that had to do with James's and Sirius's need for an audience, a lookout, another pair of hands. And they certainly had tight control of Remus and Peter. Peter seemed to have a pretty strong crush on James, and Remus was so desperate for friends he compromised his conscience for them. Yes, much of this is based on the one scene JKR gives us, but it's a fair judgment to make, IMO. We're not anthropologists stumbling upon the Marauders and needing furthur proof that this is a typical day. JKR deliberately gives us this scene to give us an idea of what their characters were like. Of course, there's probably more to that scene and more to their characters. But I think that we're given a solid foundation to build on. Especially since all secondary sources tend to agree with what we were shown. The main friends were James and Sirius, charismatic and puckish. Peter was a hanger-on, happy just to watch James in action. And Remus faded into the background. > >>Saraquel: > At the time Sirius is talking about a state of war existed. Your > friends were more than just those whom you had a personal bond > with, your friends were anyone who was on your side. > > He suspected that Lupin was the spy, but he did not know for sure. > I think that his need to believe that everyone around him was true > would have battled with the suspicion of treachery. Sirius is the > sort of person who has so much faith in himself and placed so much > importance on the relationship he had with the other Marauders, that > he would find it very difficult to suspect that they were the spies. > Betsy Hp: And yet, Sirius had no problem suspecting Lupin. So, again, the depth of the Marauder bond is brought into question, IMO. Though, to be fair to the Marauder's, everyone was suspecting everyone. That was Voldemort's special little gift. I think Sirius might have been so shocked at Peter's betrayal because Peter seemed to love James just as Sirius did. I think Sirius didn't realize that Peter's love for James was different than his, not so stable, more easily twisted. Hero worship doesn't go as far as true friendship, and I think James and Sirius learned that the hard way, unfortunately. Betsy Hp From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Sep 7 02:26:42 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 02:26:42 -0000 Subject: Three Broomsticks Eavesdropper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139705 daychele: > This is my first post and probably someone has already answered my > question, but...in OoTP DD says of the eavesdropper that "My--our--one > stroke of good fortune was that the eavesdropper was detected only a > short way into the prophecy and thrown from the building." In HBP, > Trelawney describes the commotion outside the door regarding the same > incident, "there was that rather uncouth barman standing with > Snape,..." According to DD, Snape was the one who gave the > information about the prophecy to LV, who is the barman and what is > his role, if any, or did I just miss it in one of the books? Maybe > it's a totally moot, undeveloped observation...But does it go anywhere? houyhnhnm: What bugs me about this piece of information is not the identity of the barman. Although maybe it would if I thought about it long enough--the ramifications that is; I know it's Aberforth. What I want to know is this: If Snape was thrown out *only a short way* into the prophecy how does Trelawney know he was there that night? Did she come out of her trance just long enough to register the commotion at the door, and then go back into it? From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 02:36:37 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 02:36:37 -0000 Subject: Killing tears the soul apart redux. WAS: Re: Snape's penance? In-Reply-To: <700201d40509051205790ea739@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139706 > Kemper now: > Here is the evidence that the narrator argues (though 'suggests' would be a > better word) that killing is okay. (OoP 844, US soft) > ...Harry asked..."The end of the prophecy... it was something about > ...'neither can live...'" > "'...while the other survives,'" said Dumbledore. > ..."so does that mean that ... that one of us has got to kill the other > one... in the end?" > "Yes, " said Dumbledore. > Dumbledore, our sage, suggests (if not advocates) killing... at least, > killing Voldemort. Alla: Oh, but doesn't it relate to self-defense more or less? I mean, even if Harry kills Voldemort in his sleep, which I don't think Harry would do, in fact I don't think Harry would kill him at all , woudn't you consider it self-defense? I think I would. But having said that, I still think that even though killing in self-defense could be excusable, it still damages one's soul ( that is why i don't think Harry would do it) I had been reading posts arguing that soldiers, policemen in the line of duty certainly won't have their soul damaged,since they are under orders, or simply defend us, etc. Well, I am simply talking about rules of Potterverse ( and no, I am not considering my self to be an expert of them :-), it is just my reading). Is it too simplified in comparison to RL? Yes, of course, but as far as I can see, I think that in "potterverse" killing is not OK, some very limited kind of killings can be excused, but it still leaves a sign on your soul, IMO. Oh, and about the mechanics how soul-splitting works. IMO, and this is of course just speculation, I don't think that JKR ever intended to develop the mechanics of soul-splitting. I think ( and sorry for talking like a parrot) that she intended to portray soul-splitting in the very broad philosophical, metaphorical sense, as an action which is influenced by killing, that is all. JMO, Alla From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Sep 7 03:00:24 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 03:00:24 -0000 Subject: either must die at the hand of the other, Contradiction or Clue? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139707 Saraquel: My take on the horcrux!soul parts, is that they are not truly alive and therefore, destroying them is not technically killing them. They don't die, they are destroyed. Valky: I like this but it doesn't quite ring true. I am finding it difficult to determine in my own mind that the Horcrux parts are any less alive than Voldemorts last original piece of soul. I don't think that any of Voldemort is truly alive, and I am glad that JKR cleared that up in HBP actually, because the prophecy was quite unfathomable before that, it contradicted canon that Harry and Voldemort were alive by saying that they weren't. Now we at least know that theres a possibility neither of them are truly alive, thanks to all Voldies souls splitting and dumping experiments. Back to the point, however, because not many agree with Harry not truly being alive as I do, the concept that parts of Voldies soul could be destroyed in a detached sense as opposed to their destruction being a part of his actual death just doesn't quite clear it up for me. I think it has some relevance to the issue, but I am not quite able to believe that its all there is. I do appreciate your input though Saraquel. And I hope I haven't put you off trying to convince me or push for a comprimise that leads to greater things :D Saraquel: If the horcrux!soul parts are alive, then DD and Harry have already committed murder (yes, I am aware of the ongoing discussions about what constitutes murder and what is manslaughter, but for this post, I'm going to stick with ? killing is murder.) Valky: I think this is actually a really pertinient issue Saraquel. Dumbledore obviously does not believe that Harry committed a murder with that Basilisk tooth, but if he destroyed a mans soul, then what is the difference? I mean apart from the fact that he was completely justified in taking back Ginny's life, which Tom unrighteously tried to steal. Or maybe that is the point.. There was something else you said, which interests me. Saraquel: Which gets me back to the topic that I keep nibbling away at without success ? what is the relevance of bodies . but I digress marginally. Valky: I don't mind the digression one bit! I am fascinated and I never thought of this before. What has struck you about it so far? I definitely agree that in Potterverse there is a unclear but plot-relative distinction between body and soul. We have bodies without souls (Crouch Jr) and souls without bodies (Voldemort). We have a whole body and soul passing through the veil in one piece (Sirius) and we have shadows of people staying behind that are neither body nor soul (Ghosts). I think defining body and soul in the Potterverse is completely relevant, can you tell? According to the quote that Saraquel graciously found for us a soul without a body is like this: p567 "I remember only forcing myself, sleeplessly, endlessly, second by second, to exist I settled in a faraway place, in a forest, and I waited surely, one of my faithful Death Eaters would try and find me one of them would come and perform the magic I could not, to restore me to a body" This is the existence of what is apparently a scrap of Voldemorts soul, bare and unprotected from the world without a body. While just his soul he has the faintest grip on life he speaks of it as though it was pure misery to be alive in this barest sense of the word. Does Voldemorts experiences as vapour mort define the existence of a soul without a body? If so I wonder if this is the life that he has forsaken the pieces of his soul to. Are all of Voldemorts Horcruxes suffering and destitute in their exiles like Vapour!Mort was, are they in equal desperation to be returned to life, to be real again? Are all these little pieces of Voldemort forcing themselves to sleeplessly endlessly second by second, exist? Taking an example of the piece of Voldemorts soul manifesting itself through Ginny Weasley. The Diary Horcrux drains Ginny's life away to create its soul piece a new body. First it took over her body, the HSP was poured into her and once it had control of her body it moved on from there, draining her ?life essence? to inhabit a body of magical creation. How did he do this? It seems like the soul fragment converted the essence of Ginny's life into a body for itself, it didn't take her material body, literally, so I think that the body of Young Tom must have been created by the soul piece, in some way. It also seems to be some inverse parrallel to a Dementor - While the Dementor drains the soul from the life, Tom was rather draining life for his soul. After Ginny had thrown him away, I appeal that he did seem to become rather desperate to make sure it stuck this time. One thing is for sure, although I seem to have gotten nowhere much else, the body and the soul are *meant* to stay together in life. Anything else is just unthinkable. Clearly cutting your soul up is an atrocity to begin with, but how deep does that river run, what has Voldemort done to himself? And how might releasing a bunch of desperate traumatised Vapourmorts figure in the scheme of things? Saraquel: So it seems to me, that the only part of Voldemort that is truly alive, and can therefore be killed, is the soul *and* body that is walking around calling itself Voldemort. It can continue to exist without any of the HSPs, but, if you try and kill it, with any of the HSPs still in existence, they somehow anchor the original soul part to this world and prevent it from going beyond the veil ? i.e. dying. So dying seems to be a two part process ? destruction of the body and release of the soul to beyond the veil. Valky: I hate to mess this up on you Saraquel, but it doesn't fit Sirius' profile. His Body and Soul disappeared to beyond the veil together, there was no destruction of the body and yet he is as dead as any dead person, right? Like you said 4.9 = 5.1 again it's not making any sense. I don't know that I can honestly define a line between the body and the soul, I am beginning to think that there isn't one, bodiless souls and souless bodies will always long for the other peice of themself. When Voldemort creates himself a body in GOF he declares that he is comprimising and that he would prefer that the body was immortal, but he was desperate enough to take anything he could. These Horcrux thingies are becoming outright disturbing the more I consider them. Valky From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 03:11:18 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 03:11:18 -0000 Subject: Sirius' declaration of loyalty in the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139708 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > And really, his statement *is* an exaggeration, IMO. As JKR disagrees with you, I'm going to take her exegesis on the character over yours. :) > Sirius and James weren't willing to die for Peter. They put him > into the incredibly dangerous position of Secret Keeper, where > Peter would be risking *his* life for James. Don't forget Lily; she has to play into this whole SK scenario as well. (And the baby, but that's perhaps beside the point.) Actually, it's not so beside the point: it's not only risking his life for James, it's also for Lily (another valued Order member), and for the baby who they must know that Voldemort is hunting. We're lacking information here (of course), but I don't see this going down without Lily's input, and I don't see a situation of great duress being put onto Peter. But now I'm interested in the angle of Peter as having an obligation not so much to Lily and James as old friends, but as Order members and valuable, targeted ones. Hmmm... > Betsy Hp: > Except we know that their bond wasn't that tight, in the end. The > Marauders fractured before Peter became the Secret Keeper. > Yes, much of this is based on the one scene JKR gives us, but it's > a fair judgment to make, IMO. We're not anthropologists stumbling > upon the Marauders and needing furthur proof that this is a typical > day. JKR deliberately gives us this scene to give us an idea of > what their characters were like. I don't think that's quite how it is, because of my read on the function of that scene. It's placed where it is and composed as it is, to disrupt some of our assumptions and constructions to a maximal degree. Most of us felt rather disoriented from what we'd thought, after that scene. Of course, we've learned things which complicated other aspects of the scenario in book 6, to put it mildly. Is it too much to suspect the pendulum swings even more in the other direction? Clean extrapolation from one scene is very dangerous--it lets us hang ourselves with our own rope. As well, your extrapolation from that scene requires that they remain basically the same from 15 to 21 or so, or maybe even earlier. Characters can't change, develop, show more depths? It's one clean line from childhood into adulthood, and all actions can be completely linked back to the pettinesses of youth? Draco's *really* doomed, then. :) > Betsy Hp: > And yet, Sirius had no problem suspecting Lupin. No problem? Canon? > So, again, the depth of the Marauder bond is brought into question, > IMO. Though, to be fair to the Marauders, everyone was suspecting > everyone. That was Voldemort's special little gift. The wartime situation put the screws onto everyone, so it seems. And that's where my read differs so dramatically. There must have been some strong linkage to bring everyone into the Order. Dumbledore must have vetted and vouched for all of them, and must have been fooled along with them, unless you want to whip out one of the 'DD knows all!' conspiracy theories. Isn't it nice and thematic for the friendship to have been damaged by the stress of war, twisting it, especially Peter, into distorted figures? It's very foreshadowed that Peter has some role to play, and it's both thematic and BANG-y if there is a partial moral recuperation for him. Ultimately, I think JKR is really rather sentimental about many things, and the friendship of the Marauders may well be one of them. A deep and genuine friendship, the war breaking holes into it via everyone's character flaws, but the fundamental qualities still held onto by at least one member--I can see that. -Nora notes that the dynamics of the Trio are wildly different from those of the Marauders, but also notes that anyone who is shocked by this hasn't observed groups of guys in their native habitat From tifflblack at earthlink.net Wed Sep 7 03:32:51 2005 From: tifflblack at earthlink.net (Tiffany Black) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 20:32:51 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Vanishing Cabinets (2) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139709 Susan: If it is the same one, then was it still functional at the beginning of that school year? When Harry jumped into the one in Borgin & Burkes to hide from the Malfoys, could he have been transported into Hogwarts? Why wasn't he? Tiffany I do think that was the same cabinet. I've been dying to know what would have happened to Harry if Draco had spotted him and slammed the door all the way shut. I think it would have sent Harry to Hogwarts a month ahead of time. Imagine trying to explain that one to Prof.. Snape. Lol. I think the reason Harry wasn't transported was that he didn't shut the door all the way when he hid in it. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 03:44:01 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 03:44:01 -0000 Subject: Grindelwald taught Tom about making Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139710 Jen wrote: > I tend toward the idea Tom hadn't yet made the diary into a Horxcrux when he talked to Slughorn, but *had* put his memory into it (that seemed like two different processes to me, the way DD described the diary as a memory and a weapon). Carol responds: I think you're right. He had to have written the diary (placed his memory of himself inside it) at the end of his fifth year after he killde Moaning Myrtle (considering the basilisk as his weapon as the wand was his weapon for the AKs) but before he killed his parents and certainly before his talk with Slughorn, which occurs after he killed his parents (he's wearing the ring) but before he knows how to make a Horcrux. I think the diary was not originally intended to be a Horcrux. It was created to continue the unfinished business of killing "Mudbloods" at Hogwarts--"Salazar Slytherin's noble work." I think he must have visited Grindelwald during the summer between his sixth and seventh years, learned how to make a Horcrux, and converted the diary into one without compromising its original purpose. I think it's different from the locket, cup, and ring Horcruxes in two important ways. It's easily destroyed and it interacts with its victim, who is supposed to provide his or her own soul to resurrect the memory of Tom Riddle. The later Horcruxes are solid metal, not easily destroyed, and are protected by curses (or poisoned memories and Inferi). They do not, as far as we can tell from the ring and fake locket, take the soul of the person who breaks the curse and destroys the half or quarter or eighth or sixteenth of Voldemort's soul enclosed within. Also, the other Horcruxes were hidden. The diary was placed in Lucius Malfoy's (or his father's?) possession to be used at the proper time. (Lucius, of course, used it at what LV considered the improper time.) Grindelvald, no doubt, suggested the use of solid, virtually indestructible objects and may have given him the idea of magically hiding them. (LV's choice of objects significant to him and hiding places associated with his life is his own doing--or undoing--and not IMO part of what he would have learned from Grindelwald.) I'm still not sure that Nagini is a Horcrux and I'm absolutely certain that Harry isn't (okay, 90 % sure--I was wrong about Mark Evans, to name my most glaring error). Carol, who's pretty sure that Bill Weasley's skills as a curse breaker are about to come into play and not at all sure of his chances of survival From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Sep 7 03:48:09 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 03:48:09 -0000 Subject: Two replies - Dumbledores hand and Arnold the Pygmy Puff Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139711 - Kizor: I don't have enough data to present much evidence one way or the other, so I'm going to keep this short. DD's destruction of the ring Horcrux was apparently difficult, dangerous and required extreme measures. Horcruxes contain parts of soul, the living-ness of which is in question. The ring that cost Dumbledore his hand remained intact. I therefore suggest that DD committed the deed by sticking the ring through the veil - while holding it in his hand, which from that point forth looked dead and didn't heal at all. Discuss. Valky: Gosh what a brilliant theory Kizor, I like it quite a lot actually though I would probably be more enthusiastic about it if I hadn't just read and reread and rereread the scene where Sirius falls into the veil and become convinced that touching it in any way causes it to drag you in slowly and inescapably. Though it's still workable if Dumbledore was extremely cautious to touch the ring and only the ring to the veil, whereupon his hand deadened from the rush of wind that flies from the veil after it had swallowed up Voldemorts soul piece. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rt11guru" wrote: > Rereading HBP, I noticed the following in the account of the party > after the quidditch match: > > [Harry] walked straight into Ginny, Arnold the Pygmy Puff riding on > her shoulder and Crookshanks mewing hopefully at her heels. > ... > [Ginny] walked off to help herself to more butterbeer. Crookshants > trotted after her, his yellow eyes fixed upon Arnold. > > So is this the cat part of Crookshanks viewing Arthur as a furry > little snack, or is the kneazle part keeping a close eye on another > dangerous beastie? > Allie: I also made a mental note of that one. I'm having a hard time finding something that could be evil about a miniature Puffskein ("covered in soft, custard-coloured fur, it is a docile creature" - FB), humming and cooing and eating snot and spiders. And I don't think JKR would make *another* Weasley pet an animagus. (Been there, done that.) Obviously nothing played out in HBP, but maybe in Harry Potter and the Next Grand Adventure... Valky: Good catch both of you. I'm reminded of the comment Ron made about Harry's Sneakoscope going off all through dinner. Ron was saying that it was detecting something that the Twins had done to Percy, later we are surprised to discover that Pettigrew was sending it off all year. At the moment, I'm thinking that since it comes from Fred and Georges store it definitely is *not* what it first appears, the Pygmy puffs might not be miniature puffskeins at all but instead another of one of the twins awful pranks, some hideous rare creature transfigured into a puff but due to revert to its alter form when you least expect it. Basically, this time, I think, it *is* the Twins setting off the Sneakoscope. :D From alimcj at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 03:28:40 2005 From: alimcj at yahoo.com (AliMcJ) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 03:28:40 -0000 Subject: Why a Badger? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139712 I've looked around through posts and this has had some discussion. Does anyone have any insight on why the Hufflepuff mascot is a Badger and what sort of symbology it might have? The only cultures I know of that have the Badger as a folk symbolic figure are the Native American and the Japanese, and then we have the idioms "to Badger someone" and "the Badger game" (unless I have the wrong animal in there, and I may -- where two people set up a scenario to take advantage of someone, a fake guerilla theatre of sorts, and then a third comes in, who is in cahoots with the two, and they bilk the unsuspecting victim, often a game of someone being set up with a woman who is in cahoots and then her boyfriend comes out of the woodwork with some sort of blackmail scheme). Can anyone catch me up on thoughts on "Why a Badger?" Ali From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Wed Sep 7 03:27:49 2005 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (Jazmyn Concolor) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:27:49 -0700 Subject: Not a Dark Mark In-Reply-To: <20050907004052.25330.qmail@web30015.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050907004052.25330.qmail@web30015.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <431E5E35.3020606@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139713 Lynda Cordova wrote: > > >Dumbstruck? Not really although I hadn't put it together in this context as of yet. I've been saying for six books now that Draco Malfoy was/is my prime candidate for werewolf/vampirism. And he does mention that Fenrir Greyback is a family friend. Certainly his symptoms are similar to Lupin's. Its a strong possibility. A very strong possibility. Jazmyn: I just don't see this at all. The Malfoys are dark wizards and purebloods. They view non-humans, half-breeds and WEREWOLVES as vermin.They despise them, even if they are 'using' them as weapons. Draco would likely rather die then become a werewolf. I cannot see Draco or any of the DEs willingly becoming werewolves. He was sickly from STRESS, not from werewolf bite. And his disappearances were from him trying to repair the vanishing cabinet so he could get the DEs into the school and he could complete the task Voldemort gave him. The stress came from his failures, plus possibly from exposure to that cursed necklace he tried to get delivered to Dumbledore.. and the knowledge that if he did not show results Voldemort would kill him and his family. As closely as he was watched by Dumbledore and Snape.. (and Harry), SOMEONE would have noticed if he was disappearing ONLY during fulll moons. Snape certainly would have, being he hates werewolves so much. Jazmyn From darkmatter30 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 04:58:51 2005 From: darkmatter30 at yahoo.com (Richard) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 04:58:51 -0000 Subject: Why keep the horcrux ring? (was: Possible source of DD's hand injury) In-Reply-To: <001801c5b33a$5f5e7c70$54e1b844@livingroom> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139714 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bev & Gary" wrote: > > > KathyK: > > Interesting. My main question about this would be, why would > > Dumbledore need to hold onto the ring? > > SSSusan: > I'm not sure I'm right about this, but... is it possible that DD wanted > to hang onto it *because* he knew Slughorn would recognize it? Perhaps DD thought coming face to face with the artifact > which had held one of Voldy's horcruxes (horcruces?) would prove > persuasive? > > Or am I way off base there? ;-) > > Beverly replies: > > I don't think you are off base, Susan. I believe Dumbledore wore that ring when he visited Slughorn for a reason. If you'll remember, in the pensieve scene of the "Sluggish Memory," Tom Riddle is wearing the ring in Slughorn's presence. Harry makes a note of it and thinks "Voldemort has already killed his father." > So, Slughorn has seen Tom Riddle wearing the ring and even though we don't know whether or not Slughorn knows or suspects it is a horcrux, it will interest him and grab his attention. Then, to see that *same* ring on Dumbledore's hand...well, it has to register. > > Dumbledore doesn't do anything of that magnitude just because. There is a reason. What is that reason? To give Slughorn a little jolt to show that Dumbledore is on the trail of Voldemort and if old Sluggy has any information about Voldy, then he needs to be forthcoming. > > Bev. Richard here: While I do believe that Dumbledore had a reason for keeping the ring, and for showing it to Slughorn, I don't think we have any basis for presuming that Slughorn knew it was a horcrux prior to Dumbledore telling him ... and we don't have any basis for presuming that Dumbledore did so. The simplest explanation for having it when visiting Slughorn is that Slughorn might well recognize it, and realize that this was taken from either Tom himself, or from some person or place with whom or where it was considered safe. There might well be the hope that Slughorn would leap to the conclusion that this was a horcrux of Tom's, and that it has been destroyed as such. We don't know that even this realization occured, though, so I think even this is still in the realm of pure speculation ... even though I think this is the case in so far as Dumbledore's intent goes. As for why Dumbledore would choose to keep the ring for any other purpose, consider the fact that until it has been examined after its "destruction," would Dumbledore be certain that he had in fact destroyed a horcrux? With respect to the veil specifically, we "saw" Sirius pass through the veil, and nothing came out the other side: Sirius and all he carried and wore simply disappeared. Had the Gaunt ring been tossed through the veil, how likely is it that it would pass through and not also disappear? As I see it, giving up the ring completely, with no possibility of examining it would leave one very critical question mark for Dumbledore in his quest for whatever horcruxes Tom had made. Again, as we only see things passing through the veil and disappearing (OK, it is the veil and the arch, really, but let's not pick that nit for the moment), do we know whether it is possible for anyone to pull something like their hand out from the arch at all? Again, we simply don't know, but I do think the logic of magic (a la JKR) doesn't have to require one-way passage through the veil. Now if we assume that it was passed through the veil, and any such passage kills any living thing so passing, and that therefore the ring, as a "living thing" (at least with regard to Tom's fragmentary soul), are we sure it could be withdrawn, were someone to hold it and carefully thrust it some distance through the veil? I think, as an independent "living" thing, it would not be possible to pull it back unless one was actually wearing it ... which is again pure speculation. The problem I see with this scenario is that it becomes the effect of the veil/arch that causes the damage, and not one or more powerful curses placed upon the ring in order to at least discourage anyone from damaging it. To me, the primary reason for such speculation is that we do not know how Harry might find the remaining horcruxes, nor whether Harry will have the slightest idea how to go about destroying them once found. Thus, I think there will need to be some explanation of the methods that may or must be used to destroy those remaining. Richard From cdayr at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 05:18:33 2005 From: cdayr at yahoo.com (cdayr) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 05:18:33 -0000 Subject: Regulus and Snape (was:OFH!Snape scenario (Long)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139715 wrote: > I usually find the irresistible force meets immovable object debates > over Snape quite daunting. [snip} I > haven't really seen an OFH!Snape scenario spelt out on the list, so > what follows is me trying to work through a OFH!Snape scenario, it > may well have glaring holes ? please feel free to pick at them:-) > [big snip of fab Snape analysis] > > There is a big chunk of Snape story missing between the discovery of > the prophecy and Godric's Hollow. Was he involved in the cave? (In > my reckoning he's the only character (maybe Lily or James) who had > the ability to overcome the obstacles in the cave, I don't believe > RAB did it alone and I'm not convinced about Kreacher. I think he's > a strong contender, but I'm not fixed on that.) What exactly was his > reason for going to DD? Was it real remorse? Was it just an act to > get him in as a spy? > CDR here: Your post has really started me thinking- I love your assessment of Snape's self-interested goals and quest for knowledge. However, this one little section above got me thinking along another line- definitely not straight out of canon, but fun to ponder...Please stop me if this has been covered- I read daily, but maybe missed this. Your post tied two characters together in my mind for the first time- Regulus and Snape. It occured to me when reading your post that Regulus would have been just one year younger than Snape (and all the Marauders, confirmed by Lexicon) and a Slytherin. One of the issues that is still unresolved for me is why Snape and Sirius loathed each other so very much as adults- it still seems ridiculously extreme when based only on teenage dislike of each other. Now I'm wondering if Snape and Regulus weren't Slytherin buddies (hard to imagine Snape as anyone's "buddy" but who knows?). If so, and Sirius tied both his brother's descent into DE status and his death to his friendship/alliance with Snape, it could account for some of the loathing on his part. On Snape's side, if he felt that Sirius had abandonned his brother and his "toujours pur" blood-line, it could explain some of Snape's issues with Sirius (although frankly the "worst memory"-style bullying would explain it as well). I like the idea that Snape's only real "friend" was Sirius's brother, who went off and got himself killed, and neither of them has forgiven the other for it. Can't pull any canon yet (probably isn't any), but I'll keep looking. Please let me know if this idea has been discussed before- I'd love to read the thread. I'm pondering the idea of a RAB/Snape team effort on the horcrux in the cave, as you suggested. If Snape had been helping Regulus and then escaped from Voldy while Regulus was killed, it would definitely add another dimension to Snape's shifting loyalties. However, I'm still not convinced myself...do you have further thoughts on why Snape might have helped? It seems to me at that point in time he is pretty committed towards Voldy. Could be interesting though... -CDR, finally posting *something* post-HBP, even though I've been mulling over ideas every day, and surprised at what it's about... From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Wed Sep 7 06:03:36 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 06:03:36 -0000 Subject: Why a Badger? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139716 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "AliMcJ" wrote: > > I've looked around through posts and this has had some discussion. > Does anyone have any insight on why the Hufflepuff mascot is a Badger > and what sort of symbology it might have? > The badger digs tenaciously in the earth; if we follow the four- elements theory of the Hogwarts houses, Hufflepuff is the earth house, and Hufflepuffs are known for their slow-and-steady qualities--not much imagination or esprit, but they get the job done. They are also tenacious and fierce in defense of their sett. --Gatta From juli17 at aol.com Wed Sep 7 06:12:07 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 02:12:07 EDT Subject: Snape's worst memory--more to come??? (oops, looong) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139717 Marianne wrote: And then they take Harry back to the destroyed house in time for Sirius and Hagrid to arrive and argue over who should take Harry away? I think canon is pretty specific that Hagrid was the one who took Harry from the house. Hagrid says he was obeying DD's orders. Now, maybe you're right and Hagrid also has not told us everything. Perhaps his orders were to take Harry to Snape's house, wait around for Snape to do his wound nursing and soul bonding, and then fly Harry to meet DD at Privet Drive. Which would then lead me to ask why couldn't DD meet up with them at Snape's and take Harry back himself? Why have Hagrid flying around England on Sirius' bike with an infant any longer than he has to? Julie now: Good points! I forgot those specifics in PS/SS about Hagrid bringing Harry from the ruins of the Potter house. Hagrid even makes it sound like he came straight from the house with Harry, though nearly an entire day seems to have passed. Strange, that. Anyway, I'll have to rethink that part! Julie wrote earlier: > This would mean Snape had a hand in saving Harry's life much > earlier than we even knew, and has continued interfere in that > manner with somewhat tedious regularity--damn, no wonder he > resents that kid! ;-) > > Much as Harry may hate finding this out, Snape is smack in the > middle of everything to do with Harry's life, and has been since > Day 1. Good, bad, indifferent--and Snape is a mysterious mix of > it all--Snape isn't going away. Those two will deal with each other > again, and it may be those unknown memories Harry *didn't* see > in the Pensieve that will set the tone for their final confrontation, > or resolution, whichever it may be. Marianne said: Well, I agree that Snape isn't going away. He's sort of like an irritating recurrent rash in that respect. I'm not convinced that he's up to his neck in all things Harry from the events of Godric's Hollow in the manner in which you've portrayed. But, it would be a kick to discover that those other two memories are still floating around in the Pensieve, although I'd have trouble believing that Snape forgot to put them back in his head after his last Occlumency lesson with Harry. That would strike me as very un-Snapish behavior. Julie says: I agree that Snape wouldn't have forgotten to put the memories back. I was thinking that Dumbledore might have stored a copy of those memories (can you copy memories from a Pensieve, I wonder?) or otherwise have had some access to them. Snape's memories about his defection from Voldemort, and of Godric's Hollow (if he was there at any point), also might be part of what cemented Dumbledore's trust in him--that *real* reason I don't believe he revealed to Harry. I do think it would be an interesting way of revealing Snape's true loyalties/intentions, and more unexpected than Dumbledore's portrait or own pensieve memories being the source of any new revelations about Snape. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From two_flower2 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 06:17:46 2005 From: two_flower2 at yahoo.com (two_flower2) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 06:17:46 -0000 Subject: strange morals (was: Snape's Remorse vs. Snape's Worst Memory) In-Reply-To: <431D4F11.5080405@chalmers.se> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139718 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Fabian Peng K?rrholm wrote: > > > > > > > kiricat4001: > > >"You have no idea of the remorse Professor Snape felt when he > >realised how Lord Voldemort had interpreted the prophecy, Harry. I > >believe it to be the greatest regret of his life and the reason he > >returned-" > >end quote > > > > > > > I always thought this quote was quite interesting. I'm not sure what it > means really. How on earth would Snape expect Voldemort to act on the > prophecy? Invite the parents for tea? > True, and what is also interesting here, that Dumbledore is interrupted when he is about to state exactly where Snape returned to. Where, indeed. I think everyone assumes that he returned to the good side, of course. But what if Dumbledore was about to say something else entirely, something revealing about Snape? Cheers, Two2 From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 06:41:19 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 06:41:19 -0000 Subject: either must die at the hand of the other, Contradiction or Clue? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139720 Saraquel: I have a nasty suspicion that this thread is going to turn into one of those brain aching ones ? why do I choose them :-) Thanks for your response Valky. Ok, I'm going to wade in at the end of your response to see if it can shed any light on the beginning part. Body and soul. The thing that started me off thinking about bodies, and I haven't got very far, is the statement you mentioned, by Voldemort, about looking for an immortal body and this quote from the MN/LC interview: >JKR: The one that I wondered whether I was going to be able to get >past the editors was the physical condition of Voldemort before he >went into the cauldron, do you remember? He was kind of fetal. I >felt an almost visceral distaste for what I had conjured up, **but >there's a reason it was in there and you *will* see that.** So obviously it is important that Voldemort made himself some sort of a body, and that the importance was not just so that he could wield a wand in OotP, but it has an importance we are yet to discover as JKR uses the future tense. Ok, back to our posts, and more thinking about bodies and souls. >Saraquel wrote: >So dying seems to be a two part process ? destruction of the body >and release of the soul to beyond the veil. > >Valky wrote: >I hate to mess this up on you Saraquel, but it doesn't fit Sirius' >profile. His Body and Soul disappeared to beyond the veil together, >there was no destruction of the body and yet he is as dead as any >dead person, right? Like you said 4.9 = 5.1 again it's not making >any sense. > >I don't know that I can honestly define a line between the body and >the soul, I am beginning to think that there isn't one, bodiless >souls and souless bodies will always long for the other piece of >themself. When Voldemort creates himself a body in GOF he declares >that he is compromising and that he would prefer that the body was >immortal, but he was desperate enough to take anything he could. Saraquel now: My two part process bit was badly phrased, but you have shed further light on things so I'll take it from there. I didn't necessarily mean that the body needs to be disintegrated. In fact, what is in my head is the Christian belief that in order to reach heaven, you need both your original body and your soul. Hence, at judgement day all the graves will crack open and bodies & souls go off to be judged. So having your original body is a really important deal as far as salvation goes. When Sirius dies, both soul and body go through the veil, which is indicative to me, that Sirius made it to heaven, so to speak. I loved your expression about bodies and souls longing for each other. I think it encapsulates their relationship wonderfully. I think that in JKR's world, we are supposed to stick with the body we are given, it is integral to our being. If it pegs out, then the soul goes with it ? we die, that is what death is. Also, if for some reason the soul departs, then also, the body should go with the soul. Together, they define who we are. Being alive as a whole human being is therefore having both an intact soul and an original body. If living and therefore dying is defined by both soul and body, then technically, you're not completely human and alive, and nor can you die if you are missing one of them. Because, I am speculating, you need both to go beyond the veil. Now let's investigate what Voldemort has done around bodies and see if it gets us anywhere other than back where we started. Voldemort starts off with his own handsome body. Gradually, as he starts to create Horcruxes, it begins to change and to resemble a snake. Now why should it do that? Is it that some part of the process of making a horcrux involves snakes? Or is it that by splitting the soul you become less human in some way and your body responds to that by becoming snake like? With the implication that you cannot mutilate one half of yourself (soul) without mutilating the other half (body) as well. Why snake like in particular? (unless a snake was chosen as a reference to the Garden of Eden.) How did Voldemort make himself his foetal body ? GoF p569 "A spell or two of my own invention" and "a potion concocted from unicorn blood, and the snake venom Nagini provided." Now this puzzles me. In PS 187ff we see a cloaked figure drinking unicorn blood. I always assumed that Quirrel was forced by Voldemort to drink it on his behalf. But how could Vapormort have drunk the potion ? maybe it was similar to the potion in the graveyard and he bathed in it. So we get a body somehow constructed from something poisonous and something completely pure that keeps you alive (PS p188). However, the cost of drinking (using?) unicorn blood is, according to Firenze, a cursed life and a half life. So now we have a mutilated soul in a cursed body which needs constant infusions of snake venom to keep it alive. Pretty EEEW really. It does make you wonder about just how frightened Voldemort is of death! So what is the nature of the curse which Voldemort is now under for drinking and using unicorn blood to keep him alive? Is this the reason JKR tells us that Voldemort making this body is important? Too many questions and not enough answers, sigh. If we also add into the mix at this point, Voldemort's desire for an immortal body. GoF p 569 "There was no hope of stealing the philosopher's stone any more, for I knew that Dumbledore would have sent to it that it was destroyed. But I was willing to embrace mortal life again, before chasing immortal. I set my sights lower I would settle for my old body back again, and my old strength." There is an interesting moral question going on here. Dumbledore was Flamel's friend and worked with him on the PS and presumably the Elixir of Life. The latter confers immortality to the body, but there is no condemnation of that. It seems that bodily immortality gained by use of the Elixir is perfectly acceptable. Is this because you are still vulnerable to death? i.e. someone could come along and kill you, or you could have a serious accident, and you would die like all the rest. If the body was no longer capable of physical functioning because of injury, the soul would have to leave and you would therefore die? (I also wonder if the elixir of life contained Dragon's Blood? But there is no cannon at all to support speculation down that path.) Then Voldemort makes a body using "an old piece of dark magic" ? is this magic from the same era as the magic that protects Harry? Does that matter? He uses ingredients from other bodies to do it. Interestingly, it comes up with a replica of Voldemort's old body, except that this new body now has the power to touch Harry. Again we have this mixture of poison and purity creating the body. The flesh that is used comes from a murderer and a traitor, and the blood comes from Harry, which contains traces of Lily's sacrifice of pure love. I think I'm going to give this up as a bad job now. Yes there was a reason why I haven't posted about it before :?) I just can't seem to get any directions out of it, only endless questions and repetition of what we already know. Although I do feel that the subject is very relevant, I'm just not sure how it fits. Take it away anyone, that is, if you haven't fallen asleep already. Saraquel From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 06:59:11 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 06:59:11 -0000 Subject: Draco - the Death Eaters and Volunteer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139721 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: Betsy HP: bboyminn: * Is Draco a Death Eater? * Maybe... probably. * Is Draco a volunteer? * Yes... and No. Death Eater- Draco is working for Voldemort, and as A_Svirn points out, he is able to get through the enchanted barrier that is blocking the entrance to he high tower, and he is very sensitive about his arm in the Robe Shop. All good signs. Futher as you point out, he does seem to refer to Voldemort as his 'Master'. Obviously the author left it ambiguous, but she also left some pretty strong clues. So, I'm incline to think he is, and when I explain about him also being or not being a Volunteer, you will see why. Volunteer- Let's us look at what Draco himself says about the circumstance - --- HBP, Am Ed, HB, pg 386-387--- Then, as thought he could not help himself, he [Draco] said, "I had to mend that broken Vanishing Cabinet that no one's used for years. The one Montague got lost in last year." "In Borgin and Burkes," said Malfoy, "and they make a kind of passage between them [the Vanishing Cabinets]. Montague ... wsa trapped in limbo but sometimes he could hear what was going on at the school, and sometimes what was going on at the Shop. **...but I was the only one who realized what it meant ... I was the one who realized there could be a way into Hogwarts through the cabinets if I fixed the broken one.**" - - - end quote - - - Ok, I'm extending this a bit beyond what is actually said, but I think the implication is that, probably through intermediaries, Draco told Voldemort that he has a way to get Death Eaters into Hogwarts with out detection. Then explained about the cabinets. Again, I assume the initial contact was through go-betweens, but at some point Draco was brought before Voldemort who indicated he liked the plan, and set Draco to the task. At this time, it is likely that Voldemort inducted Draco into the Death Eaters as a great honor, and I'm sure Draco readily accepted the honor without truly comprehending that he was binding himself to a lifetime of service and blind obedience, or death. Once in the DE's, Voldemort fully explained the task and gave Draco the further task, and very great honor, of being the one who got to kill Dumbledore. I don't think Draco counted on that, he simply wanted to assist the DE in getting into the castle, and from that point on let them do all the dirty work. Just one small problem, once you're IN - you're IN, and no one refuses an order from Voldemort. Draco's life has no gotten more complicated than he ever expected. I have always said that Draco's turn around, if one ever came, would come because he got into the DE's and when he saw what it really meant he would balk. But sadly at that point, it would be too late, or it would at least /seem/ too late. So, did he volunteer? Yes, I think he did, but he was given a much greater task than he anticipated. Did he volunteer to kill Dumbledore? No, I don't think so, I think that task was thrust on him by the deranged twisted vindictive mind of Voldemort. I suspect, Voldemort thought it very likely that Draco would fail and took great delight in tormenting him and his family about the task. However, if Draco did succeed in the basic task of getting DE's in the castle, whether Draco could kill Dumbledore or not became irrelevant. Of course, that doesn't mean Draco is not in for some serious torture for his failure. Remember, Voldemort himself really has very little invested in the operation. He and his crew are creating havoc in the muggle and magical world. He has both worlds running scared. So, Draco failure cost him nothing, and Draco's sucesss is to his advantage. It's an all win, no lose situation. So, Draco volunteered the Cabinets, but had the responsibility of Dumbledore's death thrust upon him. In the meantime, I'm sure Voldemort took great delight in bullying, tormenting, and threatening Draco and his family, and I'm sure part of that delight was because of Lucius's failures. Like I said, for Voldemort, even the worst outcome is still good. I realize that much of what I've concluded is speculation and a great extension of available information, but at the same time, I think it is consistent with the clues that have been laid down by JKR. The Vanishing Cabinets were Draco's idea. There are several clues and hints that Draco is indeed a /branded/ DE. I don't think Draco volunteered to kill Dumbledore; I think that was a task that was forced on him, one he never intended to even consider, yet one that he had no choice but to accept. Overal, it seems like reasonable speculation all around. At least, to me. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 07:14:47 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 07:14:47 -0000 Subject: Filius -The Dueling Champion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139722 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > Valky: > ... > > The canons lined up side by side on the Flitty Flitwick's maiden > voyage are: > > 1. Filius has been known to squeal, titter and burst into tears on > occasion when Dark Forces are about. > > 2. Filius was rumoured to be a Duelling Champ at a suspiciously > convenient time for someone who wasn't a duelling champ to be > rumoured to be one... :S > > 3. Filius was chosen over children by MacGonagall (...) to be a > Messenger rather than a fighter when fighters were clearly needed. > > 4. Filius PS/SS stone protection was far less ominous and > frightening than the others.... > > It's not well armed really, but at the moment I can't find anything > solid enough to break the hull. > >...edited... > > Valky bboyminn: Has anyone considered the possibility that Flitwick as a Competition/Tournement Dueling Champion; more like Fencing as opposed to real sword fighting? It's relatively easy to fight in a well controlled non-lethal tournement competition. Plus, he is a very small target, that's to his advantage in tournement dueling. There is certainly nothing in the books to confirm this, but it is none the less the impression I got from the reference to Flitwicks dueling skills. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Wed Sep 7 09:08:57 2005 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 05:08:57 -0400 Subject: looks determining character Message-ID: <006101c5b38b$c7e53300$a9c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 139723 responds: >>It's funny that this topic came up because I think that JKR is setting up the most repulsive character in the series to be a good guy. Yep, I think that it's going to be Slughorn. CathyD: I didn't/don't find Slughorn the least bit repulsive. I do find him a little sad. He's a man who's age is somewhere between that of McGonagall and Dumbledore, who is an excellent potions maker by all accounts, and must be a very good teacher to have stayed at Hogwarts as long as he did. Yet, instead of living his life on his own merits, he lives, rather vicariously, through his former students, making contacts to get a basket of Honeydukes confections or Quiddich tickets. I rather pitied him while I was reading DD's comments about Slug and his collecting students speach to Harry. vmonte >enormously fat >shiny pate >prominent eyes CathyD: Enormously fat: Robbie Coltrane and Richard Griffiths. Shiny pate: have to go outside Hogwarts for this one, sorry, Patrick Stewart and Avery Brooks. Prominent eyes: Luna Lovegood and Elijah Wood. Oddly, I don't find anything repulsive about any of them, either. >JKR needs to show a Slytherin that is on the good side. CathyD: One word: SNAPE. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Wed Sep 7 09:29:28 2005 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 05:29:28 -0400 Subject: Harry's character development Message-ID: <006f01c5b38e$a5731dc0$a9c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 139724 CathyD: > As to my opinion of - oops, I was going to write Frodo...now see what you've done ;-) ...Harry, I think he's a bit of an idot. He puts very little effort into his homework, pays little attention in class, accomplishes learning only at dire need (Patronus, throwing off the Imperius curse, or when cramming, with Hermione's notes, for exams), never really tried to learn Occlumency (apart from what JKR says that he would not accomplish it anyway) despite how important it was for him to do so, yet he claims "it seems as though *I always knew* I'd have to face him in the end..." Seems pretty stupid to me although that is just my opinion. The only thing he has really excelled at is Quidditch. Of course, maybe he's going to fly past Voldie on his broom and plant a big wet kiss on his face and Voldie will disintegrate, but somehow I don't think so. Geoff: >>Come on, the guy is a teenager. When I was Harry's age, I say without being boastful that I was considered one of the brightest kids on the block - my exam results bore that out. But I often didn't put as much effort into my work as I ought to. I am intellectually rather lazy and, as you suggest with Harry in your remark above, I often only learned at dire need but still retain the ability to pick up information at great speed when the crisis breaks (!) CathyD: A teenager who has been plucked from his comfort zone (not that I think the Dursley residence is 'comfortable' but, at least, a known quantity) and dropped into a world where he knows absolutely nothing. Ok, I'll give him that he didn't think to ask for books about Hogwarts, the WW in general while he was standing in a WW bookshop. Fine. But once he's on the Hogwarts Express, and knows this Hermione girl has read all these books he still shows no interest. Even after they become friends at Hallowe'en he doesn't bother to borrow her books. I'll even give you that up until the end of book five he didn't "know" he was going to have to go after LV (though he does say he sensed it all along). Here, in year six, he still isn't taking responsibility to learn anything. Instead he takes credit for Potions brilliance (to quote Hermione) that he doesn't deserve and still has Hermione doing his homework. Who does he think is going to do the work for him when he starts his Auror training? I don't think Hermione intends to be there. This young man is going to have to go out into the world and live as a wizard once the final battle is complete. He is, at this point, hardly prepared for that world at all, IMO. At this point, he's going to have to live with one foot in the WW and the other in the MW. My only hope for Harry is that JKR is going to write book 7 without him needing to know any of this stuff. By the end he won't be *living* in either world so he won't need to know it then, either. Geoff: > >>Harry also spotted Peter Pettigrew on the map - > and told Lupin CathyD: > When? It never happened in my book. ....Lupin found Peter on the map the night Ron was dragged into the Whomping Willow by Sirius and Harry and Hermione followed. He had the map open on his desk and saw HRH going to Hagrid's Hut then saw Pettigrew with them when they left. I honestly can't fiind anywhere that says Harry saw Pettigrew on the map and told Lupin about it. Geoff: >>My apologies. I had a bad attack of movie contamination. I am taking the relevant tablets. CathyD: Hope you're feeling better! ;-) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Sep 7 10:23:12 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 10:23:12 -0000 Subject: either must die at the hand of the other, Contradiction or Clue? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139725 Sarquel: >So obviously it is important that Voldemort made himself some sort >of a body, and that the importance was not just so that he could >wield a wand in OotP, but it has an importance we are yet to >discover as JKR uses the future tense. Valky: >I don't know that I can honestly define a line between the body and >the soul, I am beginning to think that there isn't one, bodiless >souls and souless bodies will always long for the other piece of >themself. *(snip)* -and again: >The Diary Horcrux drains Ginny's life away to create its soul piece >a new body. First it took over her body, the HSP was poured into her >and once it had control of her body it moved on from there, draining >her ?life essence? to inhabit a body of magical creation. How did he >do this? It seems like the soul fragment converted the essence of >Ginny's life into a body for itself, it didn't take her material >body, literally, so I think that the body of Young Tom must have >been created by the soul piece, in some way. Ceridwen: Hm. If JKR is using Christian imagery, then there may be some significance in the body being the Temple or dwelling place of the Holy Spirit. And like the 'black mass', Voldemort is turning everything on its head. I'm really loathe to get into the whole opposites thing in relation to Christian theology here. But, if it's true that this can at some level become allegorical, then it probably should be mentioned. Reading the exchange between the two of you, I notice that the one thing missing, though briefly touched upon, is the spirit. Ghosts are spirits of the departed; the ?life essence? from Ginny could be the same. If we regard human existence as tripartite, echoing the Trinity, then the spirit must be included. Is it the glue between the other two? Or are all equally dependent upon the other? When Voldemort is in his twilit existence, is this his spirit, which is anchored to earth by his use of horcruxes? I guess I'm suggesting that at GH, Voldemort's body and the portion of soul he had left to him, were both destroyed, but since his spirit couldn't move on because of the horcruxes, he remained 'alive' enough to struggle back and regenerate himself with some sort of spirit/soul magic. If that's the case, then he has already reclaimed one piece of soul from his original stash of horcruxes in order to do this, his spirit and a part of his soul generating the body that the soul longs for. So, how big a piece did he reclaim? Has he replaced that particular destroyed horcrux with another, splitting this portion of soul again? Going on, then, I'm going to have to agree to the pieces of soul returning to the original, or in this case, substitute body. I was completely against that, agreeing more that the pieces of soul returned to the 'ether' or wherever it is that bits of energy go when released. But, that would leave it wide open, since these pieces of soul have already been released from the host body, for each piece to reinhabit a body at some point, most likely through possession at first, then finally, as in CoS, robbing another body of its spirit. Which would then give us seven Voldemorts running around in reconstituted bodies formed from robbed!spirit and Voldy!soul. So, to prevent that, the soul pieces would have to (stealthily?) return to the original piece of soul, or join together somewhere, somehow, and the newly-created body, the spirit being the magnet, is the perfect place. At least, if we're getting into the subject this deep, this is my take on it, and it's just... creepy. So, I'll move on to something less EWW, Voldemort's appearance. Jumping down a level, his snake-like appearance, his abilitiy to speak Parseltongue, and the whole imagery from The House of Gaunt with the snake hanging from the door and Morfin threatening another snake with a similar fate, could Voldemort's Patronus, and his shape if he ever became an Anamagus, be a snake? If Sirius went through the entire body reconstitution thing, would his human appearance become more dog-like? Or, McGonagall more cat-like? Back to work ;) - Nearly Headless Nick suggested that ghosts are what is left when a person is afraid of dying, or unwilling to move on. Ghosts are spirits. And they retain the shape or appearance of the body in life. Which doesn't quite jibe with the whole Diary!Tom image as he's draining Ginny's spirit (if that's what it is he's draining). Or, would the two get together to create something akin to the original anyway, just... slightly different? Sort-of like the possible appearance of a child created by the two individuals? So, that's where I'm getting lost. Body, soul and spirit must be together, at least according to Judeo-Christian beliefs as handed down to present. Two together long for the third. The spirit *apparently* holds the form of the completed whole (unless ghosts are souls and not spirits, I think most people see ghosts as spirits and there has to be a cultural reason for that). So, what about Ginny's spirit being used in the failed reconstitution? Because in all of that, Harry doesn't notice the New!Tom looking like Ginny. Yup, trying to fly with eagles, ending up slogging through mud. Seriously, there has to be a way to resolve the CoS clues into the rest. Time to headdesk. Ceridwen. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Sep 7 10:50:04 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 10:50:04 -0000 Subject: either must die at the hand of the other, Contradiction or Clue? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139726 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: Valky: > Something that has had my attention since my first read of HBP, is the > line from the prophecy that says either must die at the hand of the > other. The reason this bothers me is because Dumbledore claims that he > and Harry have both destroyed a piece of Voldemorts soul each, or at > least he seems to. And I question, how can Voldemort die at the hands > of two people? It contradicts the prophecy. Geoff: I'm rather inclined to take a simplistic view of what goes on. To that end, I have tended to avoid joining the thrashing heap of bodies scrambling to present their own conspiracy theory about Horcruxes et al. With reference to your comment above, the famous line in the prophecy goes "...and either must die at the hand of the other...", a line which has probably used up more bandwidth than any other line in the Harry Potter books. To me, the crucial word is "die". If I interpret all the information about Horcruxes correctly, Voldemort will not pop his clogs until the last Horcrux is destroyed. Surely therefore, the prophecy is not concerned with who destroys the pieces up to the penultimate one; it is the person who lines up to deal with the last fragment who is the crucial opponent. As an aside, I often wonder whether we are assuming that Jo Rowling, as an individual person, been able to work on some of the minutiae of the plot and allocate as much time to it as the august body of contributors here on HPFGU seem able to do. Just over two years ago, in message 75634 "Second guessing JKR", I wrote: I sometimes wonder whether, here on the group, we get a little too involved in second guessing what Jo Rowling is intending us to read into her books... ...I have cogitated for some time as to whether JKR spent a great deal of time putting together the words of the prophecy so that ambiguities would be perceived by those who like to dissect every paragraph of the book with a scalpel! By way of example, we have had deep treatises (and a good deal of fun) in trying to interpret what was meant by the use of "either" and to whom it referred. I wonder whether this was the case. Have readers ever written an email or a letter or said something to find that the reader or hearer has put a totally different slant on what was meant? Maybe JKR wrote down the words of the prophecy with her own specific line of thought in mind without stopping to consider how the readers might choose to see a different meaning ? or did she consider every word thinking "Aha! This'll get `em going. He, he". This is perhaps a trap of critical analysis that we assume that the writer has paralleled our line of thought and has indeed inserted material which can be analysed in umpteen ways; or perhaps we are tripping ourselves up in our own eagerness to "unfog the future". I wonder whether some of those comments are still relevant today when we consider Horcruxes and the role of Snape? From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 11:41:37 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 11:41:37 -0000 Subject: The Vanishing Cabinets /Aberforth/house-elves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139727 > Susan: > > If it is the same one, then was it still functional at the beginning of that > school year? When Harry jumped into the one in Borgin & Burkes to hide from > the Malfoys, could he have been transported into Hogwarts? Why wasn't he? > > > Tiffany: > I do think that was the same cabinet. --I think the > reason Harry wasn't transported was that he didn't shut the door all the way > when he hid in it. Finwitch: I quite agree... As for where the Vanishing Cabinet came from - I can think of two possibilities: Tom Marvolo Riddle, who worked at B&B and applied to Hogwarts for DADA teacher... Salazar Slytherin or all the founders decided to install this back- door. I find it likely that back then, Hogsmeade didn't exist, so in order for them to get suppliances quick (particularly if SS was up for Potions) something like that would be in order. Of course, SS owned the place then - some time before Gaunts the shop was *sold* to Burkin&Burkes... And as for moving that Cabinet out of B&B... AW getting it in a raid or what ever. I am curious about the house-elves... Apparently they *do* know about the Room of Requirement etc. I hope we'll see more of Aberforth in seventh book... well, I want to hear of Dumbledore's childhood, and how come Albus didn't know if his brother could read? It's quite possible that Aberforth came to the Office afther Harry had gone (looking for his brother, probably) and hears the arguement between Hogwarts staff&Minister about where his brother ought to be laid to rest... Possibly being the ONLY blood- relative to Albus Dumbledore, his word would count enough to shut the minister up... Finwitch From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 7 12:45:17 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 12:45:17 -0000 Subject: OFH!Snape scenario (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139728 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > Saraquel: > > > Essentially, to me, Snape is torn between his > > preference for DDs `democratic' (for want of a > > better word) world over LVs autocracy and his > > desire for the mysteries of the dark arts. > > He has no allegiance to Voldemort (though the > > exact reason why IMO still remains a mystery). > > houyhnhnm: > > It does, but one can speculate with at least a little support from > canon. We know that Dumbledore regards Voldemort's blood sacrifice to > get into the inner cave as crude. Combining that with what we have > seen of LV's tendency to brag and run off at the mouth, it is not hard > to imagine that "crude" is a pretty fair general characterization of > Voldemort. Snape, on the other hand, is subtle. His mind is "a > complex and many layered thing". > > Snape has an almost prissy regard for lawn order. Marianne: I'm sure you meant "law and order," but I've got to say when I read that I got a great picture in my head of disdainful Snape glaring furiously at an unclipped lawn decorated with too many gnome statues! houyhnhym: He's still carrying > an enormous chip around on his shoulder over the fact that the > rule-breaking, DD's trust-betraying Marauders were the fair-haired > sons, while School Boy Severus (who kept his promise to DD not to > reveal Lupin's secret for somewhere around 18 years) is treated like > the bastard step child. His biggest gripe about Harry is the way > Harry is allowed to get away with rule breaking. > > So, Snape could kill for revenge (or thought he could--we don't know > for sure) or to bring about a New World Order. But killing for fun? > ("Half the Muggle killings back when You-Know-Who was in power were > done for fun".) I think it would disgust him. Marauders cubed. Marianne: I'm a little confused here. I get the sense that your description of subtle Snape is an indication that underneath it all, he disapproves with or is repulsed by Voldemort's crudeness, which I can agree with. But, why then, would he be willing to kill for a New World Order. Whose? It doesn't seem like you think it would ultimately be in service of Voldemort's grand plan. > houyhnhnm: > > The answer to the Snape question hinges on Snape's behavior with > regard to the prophecy, IMO. > > Not so much Snape's alerting the Order to the fact that Harry has been > lured to the Ministry of Magic, as the fact that the Order *knows* > about LV's designs on the prophecy in the summer preceeding the fifth > year, falsifies the ESE!Snape theory conclusively as far as I'm > concerned. I mean getting his hands on the prophecy was the most > important thing LV had going on, so important he delayed starting > WWWII for a whole year while he attempted to get ahold of it. > > But what is the effect of Snape's behavior WRT the prophecy on > OFH!Snape? It seems that OFH!Snape would be *very* curious to know > the full contents of the prophecy, curious enough, I would think, even > to help LV obtain it. Marianne: I'm not so sure. OFH!Snape might be curious to know the prophecy, but delivering it, or assisting Vmort in getting it, may compromise his position straddling both sides. I think Snape may suspect, if not know, that DD knows what the prophecy says. Why not delay as long as possible and see how things pan out? Snape's not the one charged with getting the prophecy out - that's Lucius' task. OFH! Snape might even suspect that the whole thing could blow up in Lucius' face, and if it does, it makes Snape's position with Vmort even more secure. > Saraquel: > > > Through Harry's action of saving Snape, Snape > > will realise the power of love that DD was talking > > about, but Snape never saw for himself. When he > > sees it, he will realise why Harry is special and > > go through his own process of realisation. > > houyhnhnm: > > From your lips (or fingertips) to Rowling's ear. Marianne: It's going to have to be a nifty piece of writing to carry that off. I'm not saying that it can't be done, but Snape has seemed so closed off from his emotions, other than when he flies into his occational rages, that I have a hard time seeing him have this sort of epiphany. I can't see him being at all happy about being saved by Harry, in any way, other than going though a long period of soul- searching afterward. Maybe part of my objection is that I can't see this as a thread that will take up a lot of time in Book 7, if what you postulate is indeed what will happen. There just seems like too much else that has to be resolved, and Snape's process of realization would seem too forced to me if it happens too quickly. OTOH, OFH!Snape needn't go through any of this at all. He could be saved by Harry, or not, and still be OFH. Marianne, who wishes to complement Saraquel on a description of OFH! Snape that rings true to my ears From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 12:46:21 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 12:46:21 -0000 Subject: Eavesdropper in Hog's Head/someone in the Weasley-shed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139729 > houyhnhnm: > > What bugs me about this piece of information is not the identity of > the barman. Although maybe it would if I thought about it long > enough--the ramifications that is; I know it's Aberforth. > > What I want to know is this: If Snape was thrown out *only a short > way* into the prophecy how does Trelawney know he was there that > night? Did she come out of her trance just long enough to register > the commotion at the door, and then go back into it? Finwitch: Of course the barman was Aberforth, and it wasn't Three Broomsticks but Hogs' Head, where Trelawney was rooming for low price. As for Trelawney in&out trance while giving the Prophecy, well I suppose it happened every time there was three dots in the prophecy line. 'The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord Approaches' Snape's probably listening at the door to this, which Trelawney notices. Someone is Approaching at this point, Aberforth that is (the bartender)... born to those who have thrice defied him... (Aberforth begins to drag Snape away)... born as the Seventh Month dies... (Aberforth's dragging Snape and throws him out so Snape hears no more.) Because in a way, Aberforth - who as the one throwing Snape out, thus preventing him and Voldemort from hearing all the prophecy, did, in *that* way, have the power to vanquish Voldemort (As Snape no doubt Apparated to Voldemort, telling him of this--). Those 3 lines - 1st one mentions Aberforth, other two give information that Voldemort was to have for the prophecy to fulfill - and THEN she tells the choices (and consequences) of what Voldemort will do about it... probably as Voldemort was making them. "And either must die at the hand of the other, for neither can live while the other survives..." That line might not have been about Harry&Voldemort at all. Well, who says that line was about 'the chosen one' and Dark Lord at all? What if it was about Snape&Dumbledore, referring to Snape's Unbreakable Vow? I'm just saying that each line may refer to different matter. Those dots have a meaning, too. Although, I'd say that 'the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies' IS referring to Harry. In addition, I find it curious that Dumbledore tells Harry that 'only ones who know full contents of the Prophecy are in this shed', not that it's just the two of them. You know, 'only ones who know are in this shed' does sound to me as careful choosing of words that are true, but not necessarily meaning what you think they mean - Dumbledore does take Harry to that shed to have the discussion. He could of told Harry all the things on the *yard* or at the Dursleys or before/after meeting Slughorn - without bothering with the shed, you know. So who else were there, unseen by Harry? Aberforth? Fawkes? (Hmm.. if Albus trusted Severus Snape so very very much, how much he trusted his brother?) Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 13:24:04 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:24:04 -0000 Subject: Sirius' declaration of loyalty in the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139730 Saraquel: -snipping excellent post-- > If the crunch came, and there was any doubt, I think Sirius is the > sort of person who would prefer to die mistaken in thinking loyalty > was intact, than to risk, being in any way responsible for the death > of someone who might turn out to have been innocent. Finwitch: I find that very well said. I also believe that Dumbledore felt the same way and very much so. I mean, in particular, about Severus Snape. The possibility that Severus Snape was sincere in his repentance and defiance of Voldemort - how ever small - was enough. Just like Regulus - Sirius despises his ever joining Death Eaters, but he has *no* doubt whatsoever that he truly left them. And Dumbledore never had doubts about Snape leaving Death Eaters. I certainly refuse to believe that it was foolish of Dumbledore to accept this repentant, even if there was no proof but Snape's word, even if Snape lied about it. Yes, it was a risk - but trust is *always* a risk. You can never know for sure. Dumbledore died for his trust in Snape, but even so, I think *he* had the better part than Moody the Paranoid. Finwitch From mcandrew at bigpond.com Wed Sep 7 13:40:19 2005 From: mcandrew at bigpond.com (Little lama) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:40:19 -0000 Subject: Regulus and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139731 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cdayr" wrote: > Your post tied two characters together in my mind for the first > time- Regulus and Snape. It occured to me when reading your > post that Regulus would have been just one year younger than > Snape (and all the Marauders, confirmed by Lexicon) and a > Slytherin. One of the issues that is still unresolved for me is why > Snape and Sirius loathed each other so very much as adults- it > still seems ridiculously extreme when based only on teenage > dislike of each other. Now I'm wondering if Snape and Regulus > weren't Slytherin buddies (hard to imagine Snape as anyone's > "buddy" but who knows?). If so, and Sirius tied both his brother's > descent into DE status and his death to his friendship/alliance > with Snape, it could account for some of the loathing on his part. > On Snape's side, if he felt that Sirius had abandonned his > brother and his "toujours pur" blood-line, it could explain some of > Snape's issues with Sirius (although frankly the "worst > memory"-style bullying would explain it as well). I like the idea > that Snape's only real "friend" was Sirius's brother, who went off > and got himself killed, and neither of them has forgiven the other > for it. Can't pull any canon yet (probably isn't any), but I'll keep > looking. Please let me know if this idea has been discussed > before- I'd love to read the thread. > > I'm pondering the idea of a RAB/Snape team effort on the horcrux > in the cave, as you suggested. If Snape had been helping > Regulus and then escaped from Voldy while Regulus was killed, > it would definitely add another dimension to Snape's shifting > loyalties. However, I'm still not convinced > myself...do you have further thoughts on why Snape might have > helped? It seems to me at that point in time he is pretty > committed towards Voldy. Could be interesting though... Lama: I so agree with you, I have been thinking this as well. Clearly Snape and Regulus would have known each other quite well, being in Slytherin together and a year apart. And if they were friends, no doubt the doings of 'my warped brother in Gryffindor' would have been a regular topic of conversation, and probably the origin of Snape's dislike of Sirius. I don't subscribe though, to the idea that Regulus (or anyone else) was Snape's *only* friend; however much he might have looked like a loner in the Worst Memory scene, remember, Sirius said in PoA that Snape was 'part of a gang of Slytherins who nearly all turned out to be DEs..' I suspect he might have been good mates with Wilkes & Rosier, both now deceased. As for Snape being involved in a team effort with Regulus to hide the horcrux in the cave ... well, I'd say he was in it at least up to his elbows. Who else was likely to have made the potion that protected the locket? I'm certain that from an early stage in his DE career, Snape would have had his most spectacular talent pressed into service as Potionmeister to LV. A further thought about the locket is that Regulus may have been entrusted by LV with the task of hiding it, and may have been able to switch it with the fake one - perhaps with help from Snape or another accomplice - before it was ever hidden in the potion on the island, which would have been a lot easier. LV was reportedly a little careless in leaving his horcruxes lying around or entrusting them to the care of his minions, and might well have given the task of securing the locket to a keen young DE project team. Perhaps even as a test of their ability. Or ... Hang on, another thought coming through... LV begins to suspect Regulus is a less than enthusiastic DE, or maybe Regulus slips up in some way that annoys him; LV decides to punish Regulus for this by setting him a task whose successful completion he is unlikely to survive. And threatens to kill him if he doesn't succeed. But then his old school mate Snape offers to help with the task ... Yeah, that might have possibilities ;-) Lama From muellem at bc.edu Wed Sep 7 13:49:39 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:49:39 -0000 Subject: Regulus and Snape (was:OFH!Snape scenario (Long)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139732 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cdayr" wrote: . Please let me know if this idea has been discussed > before- I'd love to read the thread. > > I'm pondering the idea of a RAB/Snape team effort on the horcrux > in the cave, as you suggested. If Snape had been helping > Regulus and then escaped from Voldy while Regulus was killed, > it would definitely add another dimension to Snape's shifting > loyalties. However, I'm still not convinced > myself...do you have further thoughts on why Snape might have > helped? It seems to me at that point in time he is pretty > committed towards Voldy. Could be interesting though... > > -CDR, finally posting *something* post-HBP, even though I've > been mulling over ideas every day, and surprised at what it's > about... yes, yes, yes!! I posted this way back when(july 26th!!) after trying to come up with a different reason that Snape loves Lily(which I can't abide a love-sick Snape after 15+ years). It dawned on me that Snape & Regulus had to know each other. 135111 has a fourth opinion if Regulus is still alive: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/135111 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/135368 there is a link in it that points to why the reason why Snape turned *good* and the key is....Regulus also, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/135710 has more posters responding with thoughts.... not a lot of people responded, but I still think I am onto something here colebiancardi (all excited again about the connection between Snape and Regulus) From muellem at bc.edu Wed Sep 7 13:51:53 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:51:53 -0000 Subject: strange morals (was: Snape's Remorse vs. Snape's Worst Memory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139733 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "two_flower2" wrote: > > True, and what is also interesting here, that Dumbledore is > interrupted when he is about to state exactly where Snape returned > to. Where, indeed. I think everyone assumes that he returned to > the good side, of course. But what if Dumbledore was about to say > something else entirely, something revealing about Snape? > > > Cheers, > > Two2 I wrote the same thing a few days ago: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139589 bit of a snip from my post here, but read the full post - it makes more sense: Usually, when you see that dash(-) at the end of a sentence, it means that someone is interrupted before the sentence could be completed or the person's train of thought has just trailed off. Break down DD's sentence into 2 parts "I believe it to be the greatest regret of his life" <== the telling of the prophecy to Voldemort. "The reason he returned-" <== DD was beginning to tell Harry why Snape truly returned - The reason he returned was because of something or other... colebiancardi From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Sep 7 13:55:36 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:55:36 -0000 Subject: Regulus and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139734 "cdayr" wrote: > Now I'm wondering if Snape and Regulus > > weren't Slytherin buddies (hard to imagine Snape as anyone's > > "buddy" but who knows?). If so, and Sirius tied both his brother's > > descent into DE status and his death to his friendship/alliance > > with Snape, it could account for some of the loathing on his part. Potioncat: But in PoA in the chapters about the Shrieking Shack we see that Sirius didn't know that Snape had ever been a DE. So he couldn't have suspected Snape of recruiting Regulus. Now, that neither proves nor disproves that Snape recruited Regulus, it just shows that Sirius wouldn't have suspected it. > > Lama: > > As for Snape being involved in a team effort with Regulus to hide > the horcrux in the cave ... well, I'd say he was in it at least up > to his elbows. Who else was likely to have made the potion that > protected the locket? I'm certain that from an early stage in his > DE career, Snape would have had his most spectacular talent pressed > into service as Potionmeister to LV. Potioncat: I don't think so, although it might work with an ESE!Snape. If ESG! Snape had any part of the potion, he would have told DD what to expect. > Lama: > A further thought about the locket is that Regulus may have been > entrusted by LV with the task of hiding it, and may have been able > to switch it with the fake one - perhaps with help from Snape or > another accomplice - before it was ever hidden in the potion on the > island, which would have been a lot easier. > Potioncat: While I find it easier to believe RAB switched the horcrux before it was placed in the cave, I don't see Snape being involved. If ESG! Snape knew the horcrux was fake he would have told DD. If ESE!Sanpe knew DD was going to the cave, the DEs would have been waiting at the exit. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Sep 7 14:16:15 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:16:15 -0000 Subject: either must die at the hand of the other, Contradiction or Clue? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139735 > Valky: > > I question, how can Voldemort die at the hands > > of two people? It contradicts the prophecy. > > Geoff: > With reference to your comment above, the famous line in the > prophecy goes "...and either must die at the hand of the other...", > a line which has probably used up more bandwidth than any other line > in the Harry Potter books. > > To me, the crucial word is "die". If I interpret all the information > about Horcruxes correctly, Voldemort will not pop his clogs until > the last Horcrux is destroyed. Surely therefore, the prophecy is not > concerned with who destroys the pieces up to the penultimate one; it > is the person who lines up to deal with the last fragment who is the > crucial opponent. Valky: I agree it is entirely possible and likely even that this is just the Occams razor for surgically removing my current headache, Geoff. :D However, and you knew I'd say that yes?, when only the prophecy was to be had for the discussion this notable ambiguity was dedicated, as you said, a lot of bandwidth. And IMO not undeservedly. Now, its only my opinion, but the reason I thankyou Geoff but say no thankyou I'll keep my headache is that the existence of Horcruxes in the story countenance ambiguity in this carefully worded sentence, I can choose to ignore it sure, but I am a puzzler and a theorist by inbuilt nature, so I won't ;D. So long as Voldemort has *eithers* in canon, ahh its just too good to let go of... When saying that Voldemort *dies* at the hand of the other, I keep coming back to thinking that although destroying Horcruxes preceeds his actual death, they are yet a part of it and I just wonder how much a part they are. Frankly, I'll be entirely impressed if the final book neatly knots together each and every Horcrux with this line of the prophecy, I quite hope that it is exactly how the story is planned. If it's not, then I'll live ;D and in the meantime I will cheerfully confound myself into a bow with tassels trying to figure out a way it can be done. :D > Geoff: > As an aside, I often wonder whether we are assuming that Jo Rowling, > as an individual person, been able to work on some of the minutiae > of the plot and allocate as much time to it as the august body of > contributors here on HPFGU seem able to do. > Valky: You know, I actually entirely agree with that statement Geoff. I certainly don't doubt that we dissect the elephant in places that Jo herself simply wouldn't have bothered with. OTOH I tend to be somewhat dependant on the philosophy of a thorough search, sure it's only hidden in one place, but that place is always the last place you look. And although, I don't think that JKR plotted with an electron microscope, I do suspect her of muggle baiting us with the occasional vanishing set of keys. :P Thanks for your comments Geoff, Always a pleasure. :D > Saraquel: > >So obviously it is important that Voldemort made himself some sort > >of a body, and that the importance was not just so that he could > >wield a wand in OotP, but it has an importance we are yet to > >discover as JKR uses the future tense. > > Valky: > >I don't know that I can honestly define a line between the body and > >the soul, I am beginning to think that there isn't one, bodiless > >souls and souless bodies will always long for the other piece of > >themself. > *(snip)* -and again: > >The Diary Horcrux drains Ginny's life away to create its soul piece > >a new body. First it took over her body, the HSP was poured into > >her and once it had control of her body it moved on from there, > >draining her ?life essence? to inhabit a body of magical creation. > >How did he do this? It seems like the soul fragment converted the > >essence of Ginny's life into a body for itself, it didn't take her > >material body, literally, so I think that the body of Young Tom > >must have been created by the soul piece, in some way. > > Ceridwen: > Hm. If JKR is using Christian imagery, then there may be some > significance in the body being the Temple or dwelling place of the > Holy Spirit. And like the 'black mass', Voldemort is turning > everything on its head. I'm really loathe to get into the whole > opposites thing in relation to Christian theology here. But, if > it's true that this can at some level become allegorical, then it > probably should be mentioned. Valky: Thankyou Ceridwen for venturing out of comfort zones to take a shot at this one with us. Can I just mention that I was only recently looking at the Myth of Ceridwen, a rather remarkable story which leads to the prophet Taelisin which I found also rather remarkable, but unrelated to this discussion.. sorry rather large aside there. I am very glad you brought this third factor into the mix here, I knew I was missing something. :D > Ceridwen: > Reading the exchange between the two of you, I notice that the one > thing missing, though briefly touched upon, is the spirit. Ghosts > are spirits of the departed; the ?life essence? from Ginny could be > the same. If we regard human existence as tripartite, echoing the > Trinity, then the spirit must be included. Is it the glue between > the other two? Or are all equally dependent upon the other? Valky: I first think here to tell you that I began to see Ginny's (almost)death as being rather a normal sort of (almost) death when reading it earlier in the light of what Saraquel and I discussed. However now that I consider it with this concept of spirit I am beginning to see it as rather not. While I considered it the life essence I was considering it as a sort of glue that held the things together, as well as a substance which could be transformed into the body. I am changing my mind about that now and thinking that perhaps it is more essentially the coagulating sort of concept of the three, and that the memory of body that Tom had is more to the tune of actual form. To wit, I am thinking Ginny was being reduced to a memory of body and a soul, and the spirit being drained from her was more essential in fact. Ginny was becoming something not unlike her own Horcrux by this reasoning, and since I imagine that being a Horcrux is not a light torture I am now thinking that Ginny really needed saving in the worst possible way down there in the chamber. Although I am becoming fairly thoroughly convinced, thankyou Ceridwen and Saraquel, that JKR envisioned in the simplest sense a three part concept of life, a trinity I suppose, I am getting nowhere particularly close to figuring out how the soul piece in the chamber was vanquished as completely as it appears to have been by going down this road, so I'll leave it there. :D > Ceridwen: > When Voldemort is in his twilit existence, is this his spirit, which > is anchored to earth by his use of horcruxes? I guess I'm > suggesting that at GH, Voldemort's body and the portion of soul he > had left to him, were both destroyed, but since his spirit couldn't > move on because of the horcruxes, he remained 'alive' enough to > struggle back and regenerate himself with some sort of spirit/soul > magic. > If that's the case, then he has already reclaimed one piece of soul > from his original stash of horcruxes in order to do this, his spirit > and a part of his soul generating the body that the soul longs for. Valky: I am not sure about that. I actually begin to think that when his body was destroyed his spirit left him, and only the mangled form of his last piece of soul remained. I lean towards it having been written this way because Voldies recount of his life as Vapourmort tends to sound like an existence without spirit, without impetus for life. It seems to me that the spirit was the bit that was missing rather than the soul. And I also am not sure I can concieve of him harvesting a Horcrux for his ressurection, mostly because there is much doubt that Dumbledore would have overlooked this. But I could be entirely wrong. For now I'll just walk a bit further in the direction of Soul Vapourmort in the hope that it will and does have a proportional relationship to the Diary piece of soul. The three ingredients of the resurection bath in GOF also seem to tend toward looking like a "substitute" spirit, IMO. Bone of the Father, Flesh of the Servant, and Blood of the Enemy. It reads somewhat, to me, like a crude impetus for life existing, in the sense that having a predecessor, a ?companion? and a purpose/plan provide for a spark. But I could also be wandering lost here. So I'll stop and just go on with the assumption. So if we add spirit to the mix, it redirects my thinking about Voldmeort and his Hrcruxes. In general the concept could be as I have it above. Basically meaning that Voldemort no longer has a natural spirit, and didn't have from the moment his curse backfired in Godrics Hollow, this could be his cursed Half-life, resulting from, and in a sense preceeding his drinking of Unicorn blood. Or it could also be that he retained his spirit after his "death" at GH, and now still has a natural spirit. But it could still be weakened thanks to his slaughter of the innocent creatures in the Forbidden Forest. What we can say for sure, I suppose, is that he is not dividing up his spirit equally between Horcruxes, so if it exists then it is inside the body that walks around calling itself Voldemort. I could get used to that, and let it convince me that Voldemort is therefore the only one that can truly die. But before I do.... :D > Ceridwen: > for each piece to > reinhabit a body at some point, most likely through possession at > first, then finally, as in CoS, robbing another body of its spirit. > Which would then give us seven Voldemorts running around in > reconstituted bodies formed from robbed!spirit and Voldy!soul. So, > to prevent that, the soul pieces would have to (stealthily?) return > to the original piece of soul, or join together somewhere, somehow, > and the newly-created body, the spirit being the magnet, is the > perfect place. Valky: Yes I kind of see it as they need some kind of rendevous point, or common thread between them before they are significantly *human enough* to die. However I find drawing together such a thread of these Horcruxes quite difficult. My favourite theory so far is actually that Harry is the rendevous point and connecting line and that he is technically responsible for Dumbledores death, I wrote this in my first post to this thread. Snapes involvement in this would therefore be purely for show, purely a sleight of hand or veil masking in Voldemorts eyes the real going on at Hogwarts. Allowing Voldemort to percieve his defeat as a victory, regardless of the details, is what I believe is the absolute answer to all speculation on why DD died. If Harry killed Dumbledore with Voldemorts weapon, it is similar to Harry using the Basilisk tooth on the diary, and Snape being brought in to cover the whole thing up makes for a compelling *bangy* correlation between the ring and the diary, I think. At some stage Harry must discover that he did the real deed, and he must do it again, oh the humanity of my theory! Please turn away before I even consider writing any more. > Ceridwen: > At least, if we're getting into the subject this deep, this is my > take on it, and it's just... creepy. Valky: You think *you're* creeping us out. I'm making all kinds of awful accusations of Harry. I really deserve those rotten tomatoes now. Did I say my favourite theory, I think I meant my *least* favourite theory.. eww. > Ceridwen: > > Nearly Headless Nick suggested that ghosts are what > is left when a person is afraid of dying, or unwilling to move on. > Ghosts are spirits. And they retain the shape or appearance of the > body in life. Which doesn't quite jibe with the whole Diary!Tom > image as he's draining Ginny's spirit (if that's what it is he's > draining). Or, would the two get together to create something akin > to the original anyway, just... slightly different? Sort-of like > the possible appearance of a child created by the two individuals? Valky: I take that back, that *is* a creepy thought. What on earth are we thinking? Just a quick answer to the bit I snipped, I think, yeah, you're right, any one else undergoing those transformations would reduce to something of the animal form that is relative to them, so for instance Sirius would be a dog. But Sirius wouldn't do it, so its kind of wild speculation. Except for the fact that it brings us back to Voldies Spirit. Does he have a kind of Snake Spirit? Meaning that his appearence as a snakelike creature rather than a man kind of demonstrates his loss of balance between soul and spirit, he's been cutting and dumping bits of his soul and hence becomes kind of spirit heavy. The blurred features are the snake ghost in him becoming more visible as the human soul fades and becomes transparent. So to say his original face has faded and thats the blur, and the snake features are the waxing spirit face becoming clearer. I think I have explained that rather thoroughly, haven't I. Not really a quick answer. So as to the diary, if Tom is draining Ginny's spirit then in a sense it would be likely that his snake likeness would be affected, changed by Ginny's own spirit. I've looked for her patronus but we aren't told what it is, so I have no speculation on what that spirit would look like. In any case I don't think it would help as Tom is only described as handsome in COS, no particularly interesting features are given. What is interesting though is that Diary Tom has all three of the essential pieces that we are discussing here when Harry destroys the Horcrux. Is a partial body and a partial spirit enough to endow a partial soul with a normal death? > Ceridwen: > So, that's where I'm getting lost. Body, soul and spirit must be > together, at least according to Judeo-Christian beliefs as handed > down to present. Two together long for the third. The spirit > *apparently* holds the form of the completed whole (unless ghosts > are souls and not spirits, I think most people see ghosts as spirits > and there has to be a cultural reason for that). Valky: Again It seems I am looking at this wrongly. I am, also, rather lost in my own contemplation now. And only very slightly closer to the real definition of life and death in the Potterverse. Valky also with nothing left but to headdesk. From alimcj at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 03:01:39 2005 From: alimcj at yahoo.com (AliMcJ) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 03:01:39 -0000 Subject: RAB Re: General comments and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139736 Prongs103: > By the end of this book(HBP) I was convinced that there would be more > than 7 books in the series seeing as how this book left us with so many > questions. Is Harry to collect ALL the rest of the horcruxes in 1 > year and visit Godric's Hollow (which I am sure he will want to spend > some time there)? Are he and Ginny meant to be (I certainly hope so, > there was a great feeling of satisfaction as I read that he kisses > her. I knew it all along! yesss!)? Was DD's death for nothing since > that horcrux was a fake? And will someone please tell me who RAB > is????? It seems to me like there is a lot more material for more > than 1 more book, Jo would be doing a great thing to keep on writing > them, as long as she writes them I will buy them. > > Please someone RAB!!!!!!!!!! I'm jumping in here finally -- very much appreciative of the "HBP starts at message #" link on the first page. I was here when the book first came out, and then was delayed on reading the book so I avoided reading posts, which put me WAAAAY behind while early posts were building up. I am now going back to the beginning, so bear with me for any fumbling and jumbling I do -- and there will be lots. Mostly, I will try to ask people to point me toward things that have been hashed out and the posts in which they are. I have yet to finish my reread of Book 5, and then wil revisit Book 6 (which I found oddly disappointing -- the development that was so exquisitely done in Bk 5 just wasn't there and I kept losing interest). The one thing I need to note to keep at hand for my rereading are the Horcruxes, and I don't have a list of them as found and as suspected. If there's a definitive list (or two), could someone direct me there? I'm pretty sure that Harry's Scar is somehow one of them, perhaps he himself was intended as one (and that's why he "belongs to" the dark Lord) -- as it was pointed out that animals could be Horcrux -- and it hurts in tune with LV's activity and presence, as if a part of him were stored in there. It also might explain why Harry lived. On the other hand, Dumbledore's explanation of LV's fixation on the prophecy brought much to pass that might not have, a self-fulfilling prophecy, but this demands rereading on my part. RAB -- it's got to be Regulus Black IMHO. In the meantime, for your consideration, and by way of introducing myself, I would like to share photos of a custom doll I made to represent Fleur. She is a finalist in the Susie Doll Makeover Contest (I'm an artist currently fiddling with dolls. I also have a Tonks doll I designed and who went with me to get HBP at midnight the night it came out. Link to the album of Fleur -- made before HBP was released: http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/alimcj/album?.dir=/8b15&.src=ph&.tok=phz a6YDBoorQbC10 --Alison From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Sep 7 14:45:20 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:45:20 -0000 Subject: strange morals (was: Snape's Remorse vs. Snape's Worst Memory) In-Reply-To: <431D4F11.5080405@chalmers.se> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139737 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Fabian Peng K?rrholm wrote: > > > > > > > kiricat4001: > > >"You have no idea of the remorse Professor Snape felt when he > >realised how Lord Voldemort had interpreted the prophecy, Harry. I > >believe it to be the greatest regret of his life and the reason he > >returned-" > >end quote > > > > > > > I always thought this quote was quite interesting. I'm not sure what it means really. How on earth would Snape expect Voldemort to act on the prophecy? Invite the parents for tea? Pippin: When Quirrell looked in the Mirror of Erised, he didn't see all the death and suffering that would stem from Voldemort's return. He only saw himself handing the Stone to his master. We know, from Draco and Lupin, that what Snape really wants is recognition. I believe he was thinking of the reward he would receive, being raised to most favored Death Eater, above the purebloods he envied so, far more than what Voldemort would do with the information itself. We do more harm by indifference, as Dumbledore said in OOP, than we do by intent. Fabian: > What is said after the quote is also a bit strange. Because it seems that Dumbledore more or less states that it would be ok if Voldemort had murdered someone Snape didn't know. Yes it hurts more when someone you know is murdered, but to assist in such a way to any murder is awful. At least that's the way I interpreted it when I read it. Pippin: I think Dumbledore is drawing a parallel with himself here. He tells Harry in OOP that he knew that if he didn't tell Harry about the prophecy, innocent people might die. But they were nameless and faceless and he didn't care about them. It wasn't until one of them turned out to be Sirius that he realized how much harm he'd done. He wasn't saying that it would be okay if Snape hadn't known who those people were, quite the opposite. He's simply commenting on the failure of imagination that makes it so easy, even for a man as good as Dumbledore, not to consider the consequences of his actions. Pippin From hubbada at unisa.ac.za Wed Sep 7 10:24:46 2005 From: hubbada at unisa.ac.za (deborahhbbrd) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 10:24:46 -0000 Subject: Why a Badger? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139738 Er - spoiler for Wind in the Willows? Every literate British child would think of Rat and Mole's friend the Badger, surely? His qualities of calm patience, formidable strength, practical intelligence and loyalty sound pretty Hufflepuff to me. Deborah From cat_kind at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 15:00:52 2005 From: cat_kind at yahoo.com (cat_kind) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:00:52 -0000 Subject: JKR's Ambiguities (was Re: ... Contradiction or Clue?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139739 Geoff in 75634: >> ...I have cogitated for some time as to whether JKR spent a great deal of time putting together the words of the prophecy so that ambiguities would be perceived by those who like to dissect every paragraph of the book with a scalpel! Maybe JKR wrote down the words of the prophecy with her own specific line of thought in mind without stopping to consider how the readers might choose to see a different meaning ? or did she consider every word thinking "Aha! This'll get `em going. He, he". << Geoff now: > I wonder whether some of those comments are still relevant today when we consider Horcruxes and the role of Snape?< catkind: I don't know about Horcruxes, but I do think we have evidence of JKR doing a certain amount of "aha!"ing. She did say somewhere that we should be able to work out "at least" one of the Horcruxes. Though I think that is the Grimmauld Place one, and theories about the others may be a little beyond the second- guessable. She's also said that she phrased the prophecy very carefully, though obviously we've yet to see how that plays out. But the role of Snape? Surely that must be deliberately ambiguous. There were so many things he could have done to put the matter beyond doubt. He could have joined in the fight at Hogwarts and hurt or killed someone else. He could have crucio'd Harry, or at least fought him. Well, and all the other points that everyone has been making in his favour. I don't think we're all deluded, I think that was deliberate on JKR's part. It can't just be the building up to a surprise - some of the most convincing evidence (to me, at least) in Snape's favour comes after Dumbledore's death. I suppose it could be JKR being soft-hearted and not wanting anyone else hurt (yet); she might have thought DD's death was sufficiently damning evidence to stand alone. Then there's my favourite Chapter 2. Firstly, we see that JKR *does* ask herself the same sort of questions that readers ask. Bellatrix's list of questions and Snape's replies to it could have come straight off this group. And she seems to have been deliberately setting Snape up as ambiguous at this stage in the book anyway. Why else the standard spy-pretending-to-know-the-secret- plan setup? This chapter must have been intended to set up Ambiguous! Snape if not the full DD'sMan!Snape. Even apart from the impressions I got from the chapter, it would make no sense to me if this was supposed to set up Evil!Snape, or there would be no surprises left at the end of the book. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if at this point JKR was transmitting ambiguous and we received ambiguous, why not assume the same at the end? What I do doubt is that if JKR is deliberately being ambiguous, we can somehow "figure it out". We don't have the data IMO. catkind From maddmorgan at adelphia.net Wed Sep 7 14:42:36 2005 From: maddmorgan at adelphia.net (maddmorgan) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:42:36 -0000 Subject: Loyalty & Trust (was Re: Sirius' declaration of loyalty in the Shrieking Shack) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139740 Finwitch: > I certainly refuse to believe that it was foolish of Dumbledore to > accept this repentant, even if there was no proof but Snape's > word, even if Snape lied about it. Yes, it was a risk - but trust > is *always* a risk. You can never know for sure. Dumbledore died > for his trust in Snape, but even so, I think *he* had the better > part than Moody the Paranoid. Loyalty seems to be a key issue throuhout the books...although Harry's trust is weak on the Snape issue for one who proudly claims to be "Dumbledore's man". I do trust Dumbledore on this...in fact I timidly venture my first ( and slightly rude...sorry) acronym...BADASS ALBUS ( Because Admired Dumbledore Adamantly Said So Anticipating Loyal But Undercover Snape) maddmorgan From bob.oliver at cox.net Wed Sep 7 15:22:24 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:22:24 -0000 Subject: Harry's character development In-Reply-To: <006f01c5b38e$a5731dc0$a9c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139741 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cathy Drolet" wrote: > > This young man is going to have to go out into the world and live as a wizard once the final battle is complete. He is, at this point, hardly prepared for that world at all, IMO. At this point, he's going to have to live with one foot in the WW and the other in the MW. With the single exception of Snape, who's motives are deeply suspect, I see no evidence whatsoever that any of the Hogwarts' staff agrees with you, nor do any of Harry's friends in the wizarding world. They all seem to be quite confident of Harry's ability to function as an adult wizard when the time comes. In fact Dumbledore, surely an authority on the Wizarding World if ever there was such a thing, seems to believe that Harry will rise to a VERY high level of functioning. The fact is most people learn by finding answers to practical problems that they immediately face. Most people do not read books, visit research libraries, or engage in long discussions with knowledgable friends over situations and subjects with which they are not immediately involved. When they need to know about something or are faced with having to do something, they learn about it. And these people function just fine in society, and in fact tend to monopolize its highest and most powerful strata. Schools happen to be structured and staffed by people who like books and research -- meaning people who are unusual with regard to most of humanity. > > My only hope for Harry is that JKR is going to write book 7 without him needing to know any of this stuff. By the end he won't be *living* in either world so he won't need to know it then, either. > Maybe he will be living, maybe he won't, I wouldn't dare predict (although my guess is that he will survive, it would just be too much of a downer if he didn't). And something tells me that if he does survive he will live and function in the Wizarding World perfectly well. I frankly haven't seen a shred of evidence in canon that indicates that he won't. Lupinlore From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Sep 7 15:56:20 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:56:20 -0000 Subject: JKR's Ambiguities (was Re: ... Contradiction or Clue?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139742 Catkind: This chapter must have been intended to set up Ambiguous! Snape if not the full DD'sMan!Snape. Even apart from the impressions I got from the chapter, it would make no sense to me if this was supposed to set up Evil!Snape, or there would be no surprises left at the end of the book. > I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if at this point JKR was transmitting ambiguous and we received ambiguous, why not assume the same at the end? > What I do doubt is that if JKR is deliberately being ambiguous, we can somehow "figure it out". We don't have the data IMO. Pippin: We can't figure it out about Snape. But we can, for the sake of a thought experiment, presume that Snape is innocent, and ask ourselves if there is a less obviously guilty character who might have betrayed the Order. The answer to a riddle is, after all, seldom the one that's most obvious. That would make the riddle too easy. And there are a couple of characters in HBP who are rather suspicious. Tonks, for one. But Lupin most of all. He reneged on the pledge he made to Harry at the end of OOP, one he should have known he wouldn't be able to keep. His whereabouts on the night of the graveyard and for the twelve years of Wormtail's captivity are still unknown. He's admitted to betraying Dumbledore's trust not once, but twice, meaning he's on his third chance now. His actions on the night of Wormtail's escape remain difficult to explain as innocent without resorting to Flints. And even some of his diehard fans are starting to feel a little disappointed in him, or so I gather from their posts. Some of the loudest critics of Snape on this list have also been loud in denouncing the Ministry. But the Ministry thinks Snape is guilty too. And when have *they* ever been right about anything? Pippin From milcg at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 15:47:45 2005 From: milcg at yahoo.com (Mil) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:47:45 -0000 Subject: Is Voldie alive? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139743 As I was starting to re- read HBPs first Chapter "The Other Minister"... this caught my eye: [Fudge just told the Prime Minister, Lord Voldemort is back, and the Prime Minister asked if that meant LV was alive] "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 properly-- but anyway, he's certainly got a body and is walking and talking and killing, so I suppose, for the purposes of our discussion, yes, he's alive." -- HBP, Ch. 1 Is this JKR's way, of telling us that LV isn't really alive?... I've noticed lots of posts, where there's speculation upon the prophecy, saying that "...neither can live, while the other survives..."... is Fudge telling us that indeed, unless HP is dead, LV cannot be completely alive?... and does this apply to HP as well (which for his case, may just mean that he won't be able to LIVE a "normal" life until LV is gone)? Just a few thoughts... I'm sorry I didn't quote any of your excelent posts regarding this, I'm terrible at remembering who wrote what and when... still I admire each and everyone of you for your great insights ; ) God knows I've enjoyed (possibly too much, since I've found myself reading them at the office)every one I've read... Cheers! MIL From jjjjjulie at aol.com Wed Sep 7 16:59:54 2005 From: jjjjjulie at aol.com (jjjjjuliep) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:59:54 -0000 Subject: Is Voldie alive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139744 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mil" wrote: > > As I was starting to re- read HBPs first Chapter "The Other > Minister"... this caught my eye: > > [Fudge just told the Prime Minister, Lord Voldemort is back, and the > Prime Minister asked if that meant LV was alive] > > "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 properly-- > but anyway, he's > certainly got a body and is walking and talking and killing, so I > suppose, for the purposes > of our discussion, yes, he's alive." -- HBP, Ch. 1 > > Is this JKR's way, of telling us that LV isn't really alive?... In a way, yes--but when I reread HBP, I took this to be a foreshadowing of the Horcruxes (although we also had some hints as to this back in GOF [Voldemort's speech to the Death Eaters in the graveyard] and OOtF [when Voldemort comments on Dumbledore's refusal to kill him], as well as the interview when JKR told us the important question she hadn't been asked was "Why didn't DD try to kill VM at the Ministry?"). I do not think it means anything more than that. What you see in this paragraph is Fudge's ignorance. jujube -- Madam Pince's Sitting Room: a strictly canon-based Harry Potter discussion group opening for discussion in mid-September http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Madam_Pince/ From scarah at gmail.com Wed Sep 7 17:43:03 2005 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 10:43:03 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Vanishing Cabinets (2) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <32025905090710434dc1c3f9@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139745 Susan: > When Harry jumped into the one in Borgin & Burkes to hide from > the Malfoys, could he have been transported into Hogwarts? Why wasn't he? Sarah: I think the reason he wasn't transported is because he never shut the door all the way. He left it open a crack to spy. Sarah [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sophiapriskilla at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 19:40:17 2005 From: sophiapriskilla at yahoo.com (hekatesheadband) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:40:17 -0000 Subject: Harry's study habits (Was Re: Harry's character development) In-Reply-To: <006f01c5b38e$a5731dc0$a9c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139746 CathyD: < puts very little effort into his homework, pays little attention in > class, accomplishes learning only at dire need (Patronus, throwing > off the Imperius curse, or when cramming, with Hermione's notes, for > exams), >> I always hate to disagree with an extremely thorough analyst... then again, there are so many on all sides of every issue that it's quite inevitable. But I do feel compelled to note the text does support a reading of Harry as fairly intelligent and reasonably diligent. I don't have my books at hand, but several times in each book, Rowling sets the stage with words to the effect of "Harry had been poring over his Potions essay for an hour when..." or "Harry felt Crookshanks' tail brush against his knee as he looked through his Transfiguration notes" or "They found an empty classroom where they could practise such-and-such a charm" or "Harry was satisfied that he had managed to get three rolls of parchment for Binns' essay." But we as readers tend to overlook this. Why? First, it's not that interesting. Who wants to read or speculate about endless rounds of trying to levitate desks? Few of us really care about the magical influences of Saturn's moons or how a raven is compositionally similar to a writing desk. I suspect it's not that interesting to write about either - JKR is no Tolkein to develop an entire sociology, cultural complex and military tradition for English goblins and then give us 50 pages of highlights. She wants us to know that Harry does study, does complete his assignments and work on his spells, but she doesn't want to figure out the theoretical physics of how brooms fly, and I can't blame her. Is Harry as intelligent as Hermione? Academically, of course not; I would even venture, overall, of course not. His intelligence and his curiosity are of entirely different kinds - but they're certainly there, just as Hermione generally tends to be less eager to explore unfolding mysteries and is, with some exceptions, not a brilliant strategist. Harry will accept Hermione's academic help when she offers it and ask for it if he really needs it, just as Hermione will assist Harry when he needs help completing an important but dangerous task by a design mainly his own. I would also suggest that Harry is quite humble and modest, and isn't likely to be elated for days if he's better than most at something. Hermione has never been able to compete with him in terms of DADA and magical defence, but Harry doesn't even realise that until book 5 (although most readers have). Beyond that, he's not always very confident in himself - he can't escape the fact of his talent in flying, but most people (Crouch-as-Moody, Hermione, Lupin et al) are hard-pressed to convince him he's good at much else. I suspect that's a mark he'll always bear from growing up with the Dursleys. Enough rambling... Harry: Intelligence - less than Hermione's, but not half-bad. Diligence: At least as much as can reasonably be expected from a teenager - Hermiones of the world excepted, everyone does some slacking at that age. -hekatesheadband Because the Sorting Hat is really Bono. From djklaugh at comcast.net Wed Sep 7 20:39:19 2005 From: djklaugh at comcast.net (Deb) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:39:19 -0000 Subject: Why a Badger? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139747 Ali wrote: > I've looked around through posts and this has had some discussion. > Does anyone have any insight on why the Hufflepuff mascot is a Badger > and what sort of symbology it might have? > > The only cultures I know of that have the Badger as a folk symbolic > figure are the Native American and the Japanese, and then we have the > idioms "to Badger someone" and "the Badger game" (unless I have the > wrong animal in there, and I may -- where two people set up a scenario > to take advantage of someone, a fake guerilla theatre of sorts, and > then a third comes in, who is in cahoots with the two, and they bilk > the unsuspecting victim, often a game of someone being set up with a > woman who is in cahoots and then her boyfriend comes out of the > woodwork with some sort of blackmail scheme). > > Can anyone catch me up on thoughts on "Why a Badger?" > > > Ali JKR has drawn from many many cultures, mythologies, traditions, and spiritual philosophies to create her concept of theWizarding World. Yet I have not seen any discussion of how Native American beliefs might come into play. I'm glad you brought this up as Native American Spirituality is an interest of mine. In Native American traditions Badger is a very powerful totem animal Badger's Wisdom Includes: Keeper of stories Bold Self-Expresssion Aggressiveness Single-mindedness Passion Cunning Revenge Perseverance Control Antidote to passivity or victimization Persistence in the service of a mission Groundedness Knowledge of the earth Earth magick and wisdom Creative action in a crisis Protection of rights and spiritual ideas >From Shamanism: Working with Animal Spirits http://www.geocities.com/animalspirits/index1.html Also look up Snake, Eagle, Lion, Spider, Bee, and other animals that have been mentioned in the HP books. According to Native American tradition, each person is connected with one or more animals that will accompany her/him on her/his path through life and nurture her/his talents and abilities. Each animal has it's own special power and message, for each animal has a powerful spirit and an inherent skill. Animal Spirits choose a person to be a companion to, a friend to, not the other way around. The characteristics of a specific animal often rub off on those who have it as a totem. Deb (djklaugh) From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 21:32:29 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 21:32:29 -0000 Subject: Not a Dark Mark In-Reply-To: <20050907004052.25330.qmail@web30015.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139748 Valky wrote: Throughout HBP Draco starts to look more and more sickly. He keeps disappearing. In Borgin and Burkes he shows Borgin something that frightens him, Harry thinks its a Dark Mark... Well it could be a Dark Mark, but since there *is* reason for doubt, then why don't we call it a Werewolf bite? John Granger, to whom the credit for this brilliant find belongs, has written about it on his site at this link. vmonte: I just went to Granger's website and he also believed in many things that have turned out to be wrong. He seems to know the Alchemy stuff, but he has the ships and vampire Snape stuff all wrong. I think that Harry is right that Draco has a Dark Mark on his arm. Vivian If anyone is going to be attacked by Fenrir it's probably Luna. From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 22:08:40 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 22:08:40 -0000 Subject: either must die at the hand of the other, Contradiction or Clue? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139750 "either must die at the hand of the other, Contradiction or Clue?" vmonte: Maybe this has nothing to do with Harry at all. Maybe it's been carefully worded because it's talking about the 2 soul shards only. The shard living in Voldemort and the shard living in Harry. It seems that the soul shard in the diary was able to regenerate itself because it fed off of a living being:Ginny (it fed off of Ginny's fears). Harry's soul Shard may also have it's own kind of life, having been transformed by Lily's love and Harry's goodness. Harry isn't going to have to kill anyone. The bad guy will try to use the horcrux in Harry for evil and he will accidentally cause his own destruction. Vivian From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 22:17:59 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 22:17:59 -0000 Subject: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort (was: Re: Draco's culpability...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139751 Betsy Hp: I'm responding to different posts, so this gets a bit long. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > * Is Draco a Death Eater? * > > > >>Phoenixgod: > > Harry mentions that the ward which prevents anyone other than a > death eater from going up to the castle must be linked to the > mark. based on the wards actions that seems like a reasonable > assumption. Since Draco made it through, he must have the mark. > Betsy Hp: Aha! I have canon! First, here's proof that Draco did not set off the Mark floating above the tower: "One of them, Gibbon, broke away and headed up the tower stairs --" "To set off the Mark?" asked Harry. "He must have done, yes..." (HBP scholastic hardback p.618) And here's proof that Draco was on the tower *before* the barrier was set up: "The Malfoy boy had vanished, he must have slipped past, up the stairs...then more of them ran after him, but one of them blocked the stair behind them with some kind of curse...." [...] "...so what happened when he came back down?" "Well, the big Death Eater had just fired off a hex that caused half the ceiling to fall in, and also broke the curse blocking the stairs," said Lupin. (ibid pp.620-621) This is two chances for JKR to make absolutely clear that Draco bares the Dark Mark: he sets off the Mark in the sky; he makes it past the barrier, either going up or coming down. But JKR chooses to give Draco a pass both times. I'm becoming more and more confident that Draco is not a Death Eater at the conclusion of HBP. > >>Phoenixgod: > > also, guys get dressed around each other all the time. I can't > imagine Draco being able to talk up his actions as much as he did > without someone in Slytherin seeing. And being Slytherins, of > course they would need to see. they would never take his word for > it. Betsy Hp: I doubt the Dark Mark is on display 24/7, otherwise, why didn't Sirius know about it? Also, Draco implies, in his conversation with his fellow Slytherins, that he's being set up for something *next year*, after he's turned 17. "I mean, I might not even be at Hogwarts next year..." [...] "I might have -- er -- moved on to bigger and better things." (ibid p.151) It sounds, IMO, like he's referring to a future event. > >>a_svirn: > Our discussion started when I wrote that Darco was "for all intends > and purposes a Death Eater". Meaning not literally, but as good as. > Well, the above quoted snippet from your post seems to point in > that direction too. But if you insist on the technicality let's > say, that he is a "Voldemort's man through and through". Just like > Harry who wasn't allowed to join the Order is Dumbledore's. > Personally, I don't see how it makes things any better for him. Betsy Hp: Yes, for this question I do "insist on the technicality". It's a yes or no question, and though I agree that Draco is "Voldemort's man" at the beginning of HBP, I do not think he was a Death Eater. It makes things better for Draco, IMO, for the same reason Draco not killing Dumbledore puts him in a better position. Draco maintains his innocence. It's a fingernail's grasp, I think, but by not joining a band of terrorists and by not committing murder Draco manages to get through his awakening by fire with his innocence intact. It's something Snape and Regulus were unable to do, and I think Draco, in a sense, represents a second chance for the both of them. If Snape can somehow keep Draco's soul intact, keep him the innocent Dumbledore pronounced him to be, perhaps that will help Snape along the road to redemption. > >>Betsy Hp: > > * Is Draco a volunteer? * > > > > Did Draco ask for his mission? Was he given a choice? > > > > I cannot, for the life of me, imagine Draco eagerly volunteering > > to kill Dumbledore. > >>a_svirn: > You substitute one thing for another, Betsy. I never said that > Draco volunteered to kill Dumbledore. I maintain, however that he > did choose to serve Voldemort. Whereupon he got his first > assignment ? to kill Dumbledore. > > So it is with Draco: first he committed himself to the service and > then tried to serve for the best of his ability. They are the two > different things and I don't understand why you are persistently > trying to confuse them. Betsy Hp: Ahh. Okay, I understand where you're coming from now. And I really wasn't deliberately trying to be obtuse. It just sort of happened. I'm gifted that way. My thought is that Draco never gets a chance to volunteer for even random service. I think that Voldemort popped by and said "You will kill Dumbledore and Bellatrix will train you," and then he popped back out again. Draco was never asked, nor given a chance to offer, to serve Voldemort, IMO. As the child of Lucius it's expected that, when commanded, Draco will obey, so the question of "will he serve" was moot as far as Voldemort was concerned. (In the end, I think this was a bit of luck for Draco. With the choice taken away in the first instance, it opens the door for a choice to be given him in the second.) > >>bboyminn: > > Ok, I'm extending this a bit beyond what is actually said, but I > think the implication is that, probably through intermediaries, > Draco told Voldemort that he has a way to get Death Eaters into > Hogwarts with out detection. Then explained about the cabinets. > Again, I assume the initial contact was through go-betweens, but at > some point Draco was brought before Voldemort who indicated he > liked the plan, and set Draco to the task. > > Once in the DE's, Voldemort fully explained the task and gave Draco > the further task, and very great honor, of being the one who got to > kill Dumbledore. I don't think Draco counted on that, he simply > wanted to assist the DE in getting into the castle, and from that > point on let them do all the dirty work. > > So, Draco volunteered the Cabinets, but had the responsibility of > Dumbledore's death thrust upon him. > Betsy Hp: I don't think the time line bares this out. I'm assuming the first three chapters of HBP occur on the same night. Which means Narcissa desperately begs Snape to help her son only two weeks into the summer break (HBP 44). I think it's safe to assume that the task Voldemort has set for Draco, the task that has Narcissa operating in a state of panic, is to kill Dumbledore. (If you substitute "fix the Vanishing Cabinet" into some of the sentences in "Spinner's End", it seems more than a little absurd. "It is too dangerous to fix the Vanishing Cabinet!" "If Draco succeeds in fixing the Vanishing Cabinet he will be honored above all others." "The Dark Lord himself couldn't fix the Vanishing Cabinet." "The Dark Lord wants Draco to die trying to fix the Vanishing Cabinet!" Okay, I'll stop now. ) Montague gets transferred to St. Mungo's at the end of the school year in OotP, IIRC. And I doubt he was up for conversation until after he recovered. So I feel like Draco and friends don't have a chance to talk to him until sometime into the summer. Therefore, I don't think Draco got his idea about the Vanishing Cabinets until *after* the events in "Spinner's End". To back that theory up, I also point to the fact that Draco doesn't attempt to procure the second Vanishing Cabinet until the summer is nearly over. It seems like an incredibly long time to wait to secure an item that may well be sold in the interim. Therefore, I think things went down more like this: (okay, am I the only one getting flashbacks to the movie "Clue"?) Voldemort pops by Malfoy manner and tells Draco, "Congratulations, you get to kill Dumbledore, great honor, you should be proud, etc." then pops away. Bellatrix sticks around to continue the "laurels of glory, songs in your honor, statues galore" stuff, and succeeds in turning young, naive Draco's head. Narcissa gets over her open mouthed shock and runs to Snape. "Spinner's End" occurs. Vows are made, Bellatrix is both stunned and confused, and training commences. Draco is psyched by the Dark Arts training and the chance to avenge his father, but I'm betting some doubts start to perculate. He, along with some other folks, visit with Montague (Moment of "awww" for the chummy Slytherins - do you think the entire quidditch team turned out?) and well into Montague's tale of defying death, Draco has a light bulb moment. If he can get Death Eaters into Hogwarts that should improve his assassin chances immensly. He does not tell his mother about his plan. Does he tell Bellatrix? I'm not sure. But first chance he gets, he goes to "Borgin and Burkes" and makes sure the second Vanishing Cabinet isn't sold to Mad-Eyed Moody or some other horrifying outcome. He threatens Mr. Borgin with the scarest thing known to man-kind, werewolves, and thinks himself well on his way. So, Draco never volunteers for anything, is assigned the task of killing Dumbledore, and decides furniture restoration is the new black for assassins these days. > >>Betsy Hp: > > [It's interesting to me that Draco's major effort is fixing the > > Vanishing Cabinet. It has nothing to do with killing anybody, but > > that's the work he throws himself into.] > >>a_svirn: > Actually it has *everything* to do with killing anybody. As Draco > knew only to well and we, readers, too know. Betsy Hp: Working Vanishing Cabinets *kill* people? You'll have to explain this to me. I do realize it's the first domino leading to the events on the Tower, but it's not, in and of itself, a lethal activity. Like say, constructing a bomb or a deadly poison would be. Betsy Hp From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 22:18:08 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 22:18:08 -0000 Subject: looks determining character In-Reply-To: <006101c5b38b$c7e53300$a9c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139752 vmonte >enormously fat >shiny pate >prominent eyes >CathyD: Enormously fat: Robbie Coltrane and Richard Griffiths. Shiny pate: have to go outside Hogwarts for this one, sorry, Patrick Stewart and Avery Brooks. Prominent eyes: Luna Lovegood and Elijah Wood. Oddly, I don't find anything repulsive about any of them, either. vmonte: I agree that Patrick Stewart and Avery Brooks are attractive. But an enormously fat Patrick Stewart with prominent eyes I'm not so sure about. >vmonte: JKR needs to show a Slytherin that is on the good side. >CathyD: One word: SNAPE. vmonte: One word: Nope! From trouble_h2o at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 18:12:43 2005 From: trouble_h2o at yahoo.com (trouble_h2o) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 18:12:43 -0000 Subject: Snape's worst memory - abuse survivor theory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139753 I have been thinking aobut the 2 scenes we have in OoP. The first one during occlumency lessons when Harry used a shield charm and saw Snape's memories. A hook-nosed man was shouting at a cowering woman, while a small dark-haired boy cried in the corner. The second: Harry veiwing "Snape's worst memory" from the pensieve. page 647 Scholastic version ..."Leave him alone," Lily repeated. She was looking at James with every sign of great dislike. "What's he done to you?" "Well," said James, appearing to deliberate the point, "it's more the fact that he exists, if you know what I mean..." In the first, it doesn't matter if it was his father or grandfather is the abuser, many times in domestic abuse the child is blamed for just existing. If it was his father a muggle, upset that he might be showing signs of being a wizard or anything, spilling milk, etc. it doesn't matter he exists. If it was his grandfather, Snape is a half-blood, the son of someone he loathes, the problem is he exists. It is highly likly that his mother tried to protect him, how well she did we can only guess. In a family situation when the mother is abused it is highly likely that the children are being abused. Many children, if not all tell themselves, when I grow up I will never do... Abused children often promise themself that they will never act like the abuser, but a high percentage do. Fast forward to the incident with James: Here we have a woman, coming to his defense. He is being attacked because he exists. It is not his worst memory because he was attacked by James, but he Snape lost control and acted like his abuser, when he called Lily mudblood. We do not know if Snape was abused himself, but if he wasn't he witnessed abuse. I contend that the memories are times he acted like his abuser. My reason for this is we have not seen Snape ashamed of losing his temper. The shrieking shack, the near duel in the kitchen with Sirius at 12 Grimmauld Place. >From personal experince my worst memories are not of my own abuse, or other embrassing times, but when I let myself down and came near to repeating the cycle on my own children. Merylanna's character assessment of Snape: Snape, in the books, seems to be the kind of guy who takes a good performance as lowest common denominator, and thus not deserving of extra points, and has no patience for slackers or dilatentes. We have seen in the pensieve - and in every other instance - that Snape is the furthest thing from a slacker or dillatente one could envision - he's not setting a standard for his pupils that he doesn't meet himself, and didn't meet himself as a student. Shame for not living up to the promises made to one's self is common in many of the abuse surivors I know, including myself, making it Snape's worst memory. If you accept this theory then we must look at Snape's behaviors through this prism. What does the scene on the tower with Dumbledore mean in HBP? Still thinking on that. Trouble_H2O From susanwob at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 19:53:41 2005 From: susanwob at yahoo.com (Susan O'Bones) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 12:53:41 -0700 Subject: Horcrux predictions (Was: JKR's Ambiguities) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139754 > catkind: > She [JKR] did say somewhere that we should be able to work out > "at least" one of the Horcruxes. Though I think that is the > Grimmauld Place one, and theories about the others may be a > little beyond the second-guessable. She's also said that she > phrased the prophecy very carefully, though obviously we've yet > to see how that plays out. I think one of the Horcruces is Gryffindor's sword, known to be the only remaining relic of Godric Gryffindor. Supposedly it's been "safe" in the Headmaster's office all this time. But is it??? We now know that Tom Riddle worked in B&B for a while right after he left school, and that there was a secret back door from there into Hogwarts thru the linked vanishing cabinets, that only a few years ago stopped functioning. Tom could have got into the school any time he wanted, & roamed around at will in an invisibility cloak. I bet he could have found a way into the headmaster's office... which might have been an easier task those first few years while Dippet was still Head -- who was presumably not as powerful a wiz as Dumbledore, the well- known Most Powerful. Maybe Tom had his eye on that sword the first time he asked for the DADA job, then found (or arranged) the B&B passageway after he was turned down. I think all of this adds up. In my book the GGSword!Horcrux stock has shot way up. Susan O'Bones From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Wed Sep 7 21:51:14 2005 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 17:51:14 -0400 Subject: either must die at the hand of the other, Contradiction or Clue? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139755 Valky: >I think this is actually a really pertinient issue Saraquel. >Dumbledore obviously does not believe that Harry committed a >murder with that Basilisk tooth, but if he destroyed a man's >soul, then what is the difference? The way I understood it from reading the books is if you kill a person whose body contains a full soul, even if that soul is tattered and torn by murder or general bad deeds, then that would be considered murder. However, if you destroy a _fragment_ of soul purposely set into a book, cup, ring, etc., it's not considered murder since the "killer" is not destroying the entire soul or the body it used to inhabit. I believe this is the loophole DD cites when he says that Harry, despite having destroyed the diary, has a whole soul. If these fragments can't feel each other (DD says LV doesn't know when the diary has been destroyed till told) then they're effectively dead to start with. I've been thinking of them as living a half life/a cursed life similar to when LV drank the Unicorn blood. Just my opinion. :) PJ From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 23:10:15 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:10:15 -0000 Subject: Sirius' declaration of loyalty in the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139756 > >>Betsy Hp: > > And really, his statement *is* an exaggeration, IMO. > >>Nora: > As JKR disagrees with you, I'm going to take her exegesis on the > character over yours. :) Betsy Hp: As I'm basing my exegesis on JKR's presentation of the character, I'll just say, she's deep that one, and stick to my guns. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Sirius and James weren't willing to die for Peter. They put him > > into the incredibly dangerous position of Secret Keeper, where > > Peter would be risking *his* life for James. > >>Nora: > > We're lacking information here (of course), but I don't see this > going down without Lily's input, and I don't see a situation of > great duress being put onto Peter. > Betsy Hp: Asking anyone to keep a secret is putting them into *some* level of duress. And this is a really big secret. One Sirius worried the Death Eaters would kill for. Hence the shell game. So yes, Peter *was* asked to put his life on the line. Though I will back up and say that I do think Sirius felt himself willing to die to protect "Peter the Secret Keeper". But ultimately, it was all in service to James (and James's wife and James's child). > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > Yes, much of this is based on the one scene JKR gives us, but > > it's a fair judgment to make, IMO. We're not anthropologists > > stumbling upon the Marauders and needing furthur proof that this > > is a typical day. JKR deliberately gives us this scene to give > > us an idea of what their characters were like. > >>Nora: > I don't think that's quite how it is, because of my read on the > function of that scene. It's placed where it is and composed as > it is, to disrupt some of our assumptions and constructions to a > maximal degree. Betsy Hp: Ooh, I disagree here. The beginning of the scene (pre-Snape spotting, if you will) I think the Marauders played exactly to character expectation. The only real dark horse was James, but I certainly wasn't shocked at his behaviour. A bit of a jock and a showman, that was new. And the fact that Sirius and James were the core of the group, rather than Sirius and Remus, that shifted things about a bit. But none of those things really rocked the boat. And I doubt any of those things changed much as the characters grew. The James that faced Voldemort "straight backed and proud" is easily the same James purposely tousling his hair and showing off with the snitch. He's aware of how he looks, how he comes across. Not a bad thing, certainly, but a part of his character. And the deep friendship between Sirius and James is another thing that I doubt changed much over the years. > >>Nora: > Most of us felt rather disoriented from what we'd thought, after > that scene. Of course, we've learned things which complicated > other aspects of the scenario in book 6, to put it mildly. Is it > too much to suspect the pendulum swings even more in the other > direction? Clean extrapolation from one scene is very dangerous-- > it lets us hang ourselves with our own rope. Betsy Hp: Post-Snape spotting things do get furiously muddled, I agree. And yes, to assume, based on one scene, that Snape was *always* the victim and James and Sirius *always* the nasty bullies, *is* dangerous. But I seriously doubt the characters change to too drastic a degree. Within a fictional world, where character exposure is limited, it's unwise for the author to have her characters act wildly out of character the first time she introduces them to her readers. It's not a mistake JKR makes, that I've seen. > >>Nora: > As well, your extrapolation from that scene requires that they > remain basically the same from 15 to 21 or so, or maybe even > earlier. Characters can't change, develop, show more depths? It's > one clean line from childhood into adulthood, and all actions can > be completely linked back to the pettinesses of youth? Draco's > *really* doomed, then. :) Betsy Hp: Ah, but they *do* stay the same in some very basic ways, don't they? Remus still fades to the background and fears snitching on his friends. Sirius is still confident and brash. Peter still sucks up to the most powerful guy around. Yes, characters develop and grow. James obviously changes before he graduates, though I bet he was still recognizable to his friends. Remus manages to develop a bit more backbone. (Sirius doesn't grow much but he's got an incredibly good excuse.) But they don't change entirely. James still had a bit of the showman in him. Remus still hesitates to speak out. Draco will probably always know exactly what spoon is used for what. Ron will probably always support the Chudley Cannons. Hermione will probably always love knowing things. Harry will probably always love to fly. An author *can* drastically change a character. But they can't spring it on the reader and leave it at that. So yes, I expect some evolvement of the Marauders (specifically around the time of the Prank) but I'm sure the character foundation will remain the same. And we've already seen that the pecking order remained pretty much the same. (Sirius leaves nothing to his old friend Remus in his will. That says a lot, IMO.) > >>Nora: > > Ultimately, I think JKR is really rather sentimental about many > things, and the friendship of the Marauders may well be one of > them. > Betsy Hp: Hmmm. JKR strikes me as rather ruthless when she wants to be. Look what she does to poor old Sirius. He goes from this rather grand and noble character to a bit of a raving drunk to a footnote in the war. It looks like his own brother may well out-hero him. I suspect JKR gets great pleasure in setting something up just to knock it down. Betsy Hp From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 23:29:18 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:29:18 -0000 Subject: Depth? Things to take on their face value (Was: Sirius' loyalty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139757 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: >> Nora: >> As JKR disagrees with you, I'm going to take her exegesis on the >> character over yours. :) > > Betsy Hp: > As I'm basing my exegesis on JKR's presentation of the character, > I'll just say, she's deep that one, and stick to my guns. So, here's a tangent for you. Let me repeat the comments: "I think the question really is do you, as readers, believe that Sirius would have died? Because Sirius is saying that...Right, well, that's what I believed." In other words, JKR is saying that Sirius is utterly sincere in this situation, and his declaration is pretty much to be taken at face value. This seems to me to be, to the chagrin of some, a tendency that's increasing in strength through the series. For entertainment's sake, let's pull out another one which struck me very strongly: "...because the plan was, which I really hope I fulfilled, is that the reader, like Harry, would gradually discover Ginny as pretty much the ideal girl for Harry. She's tough, not in an unpleasant way, but she's gutsy. He needs to be with someone who can stand the demands of being with Harry Potter, because he's a scary boyfriend in a lot of ways. He's a marked man. I think she's funny, and I think that she's very warm and compassionate. These are all things that Harry requires in his ideal woman." So, it's also obvious that JKR thinks, absolutely unproblematically, that Ginny is *the* perfect girl for Harry, end stop no doubts no questions asked. This is, to put it mildly, an issue that some readers have had issues with. Is there more 'depth' to be read into Harry's attraction to Ginny? I can think of other things. Dumbledore's assertions about Harry: his heart saved him and not his mind, Harry has a fundamentally pure heart. Enough potential treacle to make us look for a hankie, but all also intended in utter sincerity. I'd offer the proposal that there are many things in the series which JKR as the author *intends* to be taken at their face value, and accepted by the reader. Correspondingly, this means that the subversive readings (which do not accept these things) are highly unlikely to receive any validation or confirmation in canon. Of course, nothing can stop the determined theorist. I'd love to hear what things y'all might put in this category. To pick back up... > Betsy Hp: > Asking anyone to keep a secret is putting them into *some* level of > duress. And this is a really big secret. One Sirius worried the > Death Eaters would kill for. Hence the shell game. So yes, Peter > *was* asked to put his life on the line. Though I will back up and > say that I do think Sirius felt himself willing to die to > protect "Peter the Secret Keeper". But ultimately, it was all in > service to James (and James's wife and James's child). I see you've cut out the whole issue of Order Member in addition to personal friend, but I still think it's relevant on some level. :) Or, let's throw out more hypothetics. If Peter had refused, would he have been pressed hard--assuming that Lily is in on this too? Peter of Good Faith could have gone to Dumbledore and spilled what they were asking--breaking the bonds of friendship and secrecy, but he ends up doing that anyways. No, Peter volunteers--and sells them out. The why is the interesting thing here, of course. Was Peter torn and conflicted about this? No good canon either way. [And argument from absence is dangerous, too. Nothing to say that Remus and Sirius didn't talk about the will and Remus, in his typical way, refused to be a beneficiary. It's just as good of an argument as yours.] > Betsy Hp: > Post-Snape spotting things do get furiously muddled, I agree. And > yes, to assume, based on one scene, that Snape was *always* the > victim and James and Sirius *always* the nasty bullies, *is* > dangerous. But I seriously doubt the characters change to too > drastic a degree. Within a fictional world, where character > exposure is limited, it's unwise for the author to have her > characters act wildly out of character the first time she > introduces them to her readers. It's not a mistake JKR makes, that > I've seen. Wildly out of character is not the same thing as presenting characters acting differently. For instance, I didn't think that Hermione was OOC in HBP, although many people did. She was, however, certainly not acting completely the same as she was in book 5. Correspondingly, I think the snapshot is still exceedingly dangerous to extrapolate from. Also, given the method of presentation of the material--flashback--it's really quite easy to introduce a contrasting situation, and then leave it to the reader to try to reconcile both. I don't consider that violating the grounds of character establishment. -Nora notes that you can do all sorts of things when you're working on a revelation model of storytelling...shocking sorts of things From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Sep 8 00:04:54 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 00:04:54 -0000 Subject: OFH!Snape scenario (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139758 Marianne: > I'm sure you meant "law and order," but I've got to say when I read > that I got a great picture in my head of disdainful Snape glaring > furiously at an unclipped lawn decorated with too many gnome statues! houyhnhnm: Actually I meant lawn odor, but I was afraid most people wouldn't get it. (I guess you have to be an American of a certain age.) Marianne: > I'm a little confused here. I get the sense that your > description of subtle Snape is an indication that underneath it all, > he disapproves with or is repulsed by Voldemort's crudeness, which I > can agree with. But, why then, would he be willing to kill for a > New World Order. Whose? It doesn't seem like you think it would > ultimately be in service of Voldemort's grand plan. houyhnhnm: Because I am speculating that at first Snape may have seen Voldemort as someone who was going to create a meritocracy in which intelligence and loyalty (like his--as he sees it) would be rewarded, in contrast to Dumbledore's Hogwarts where people like James and Sirius are the favored ones just because they are attractive and popular, in spite of their rule-breaking, careless attitude toward their studies, etc. He may have felt that ruthless means were justified to bring this about. It seems to be a common attitude among people who join fascist or racist causes in RL. Then after he joined Voldemort's cause, he discovered that LV was just a crude braggart and the Death Eaters were just a bunch of hooligans, far worse than the Marauders, who killed and tortured for sport. The world they were going to create would be worse than the one he had turned against. I'm not saying that's the only reason he "rejoined our side". The Snape/Lily SHIPPERS are starting to convince me more and more, not so much because it makes psychological sense to me as because there *do* seem to be a lot of clues in the books that indicate this may be the case. Marianne: > I'm not so sure. OFH!Snape might be curious to know the prophecy, > but delivering it, or assisting Vmort in getting it, may compromise > his position straddling both sides. houyhnhnm: I wasn't really trying to make that case. I was just saying that Snape's seeming lack of curiosity about the prophecy is a puzzle to me. I don't know what it means. I think the fact that Snape alerted the Order to LV's designs on the prophecy so soon after he formed them disproves Loyal DE!Snape, irrefutably. (The Order has people standing guard by August and where else could the information have come from?) It is consistant with DD's Man!Snape but doesn't really prove it. What it does to the OFH!Snape theory is something I can't figure out. From ichangeling at gmail.com Thu Sep 8 00:14:13 2005 From: ichangeling at gmail.com (Indigo Changeling) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 19:14:13 -0500 Subject: Why a Badger? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139759 On our quest to find out more of badgers and their potential insights to the oft-overlooked Hufflepuff House, remember there is a difference in the habits of the European Badger and the American Badger. The Eurasian Badger (*Meles meles*) are social, and live in groups or clans while the American Badger (*Taxidea taxus*) are territorial and choose a lonely life except for mating and raising young. (Moody always reminded me of an American Badger and therefore I frequently have pictured him as a Hufflepuff.) Most of the wonderful stories and images I have are of the American Badger. It was quite wonderful seeing all the sweet Hufflepuffs with this inner Badger. Like a wolverine creme puff. *sighs* Now I need to find out more about European myths and folk stories about badgers. BTW the Eurasian Badger does reach into Japan, if you want to share more, Ali. Indra - iChangeling From sherriola at earthlink.net Thu Sep 8 01:35:14 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 18:35:14 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: looks determining character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002101c5b415$91064fb0$803a79a5@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 139760 >vmonte: JKR needs to show a Slytherin that is on the good side. >CathyD: One word: SNAPE. vmonte: One word: Nope! Sherry now: I have to agree with Vivian on this. In fact, when the character of Slughorn was introduced I thought, aha! At last, our good Slytherin character. He is so ultimately Slytherin, yet he's on the good side. He's cunning and ambitious. He uses what might be considered questionable means by cultivating the up and coming stars, thereby improving his life and making himself look good--at least to himself. I think he is absolutely the sort of person who is Slytherin to his fingertips and shows us a "good Slytherin". On the other hand, if Snape turns out to be good, he's almost too noble to be a worthy example of Slytherin. Out for himself Snape would be another manifestation of the ultimate Slytherin, but a good and honorable Snape would almost seem to be more Gryffindor than Gryffindor! (tongue firmly planted in cheek!) Personally, i was delighted to meet old sluggy, because at last we had a character who was true to the Slytherin characteristics we've heard about, but not a would-be death eater. just someone out to get a bit of reflected glory. As a character I like him quite a bit and hope we see him again in book seven. sherry From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Sep 8 02:36:41 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 02:36:41 -0000 Subject: OFH!Snape scenario (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139761 > Saraquel: > >Vivian wrote in > >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139183 : > << We know that Snape has used Legimency on people before-- > Fake!Moody on the stairs, >> > > >Catlady: > >This confuses me. How could Snape have used Legilimency on Fake! > >Moody without noticing that he was fake? Surely one's self-identity > >is present in one's mind all one's waking time, like a background > >noise? > > >Vmonte quoted > >"Meaning what?" Snape turned again to look at Moody, his hands > >still outstretched, inches from Harry's chest. > >"Meaning that Dumbledore's very interested to know who's got it in > >for that boy!" said Moody, limping nearer still to the foot of the > >stairs. "And so am I, Snape...very interested..." The torch-light > >flickered across his mangled face, so that the scars, and the chunk > >missing from his nose, looked deeper and darker than ever. Snape > >was looking down at Moody, and Harry couldn't see the expression on > >his face. For a moment, nobody moved or said anything. Then Snape > >slowly lowered his hands. > >"I merely thought," said Snape, in a voice of forced calm, "that if > >Potter was wandering around after hours again...it's an unfortunate > >habit of his...he should be stopped. For--his own safety." > >"Ah, I see," said Moody softly. "Got Potter's best interests at > >heart, have you?" > >There was a pause. Snape and Moody were still staring at each > >other. Mrs. Norris gave a loud meow, still peering around Filch's > >legs, looking for the source of Harry's bubble-bath smell. > >"I think I will go back to bed, "Snape said curtly. > >"Best idea you've had all night," said Moody. (p473-474, GoF) > > This is interesting. We could say that there is a possibility that > Snape rumbles Crouch!Moody's disguise at this point. But he is > still undecided as to what he should do, so opts for keeping up the > loyalty to DD side of the story. If, as I am speculating, Snape > feels he is being pulled and pushed by all around him, he would want > to try and fulfil all possibilities, and keep everyone guessing. > Perhaps Snape looks so intently in the foe glass at the end of GoF, > to find out whether Crouch!Moody rumbled *his* plan. By the look of > it, the foe glass showed him as an enemy. Of course there has been > a lot of discussion before about what the foe glass shows ? your > perceived enemies, or your actual enemies. > > However, I think it can pan out as an out for himself Snape, with a > foot in both camps, keeping both sides sweet. Snape is frightened > and distressed, but by the time DD sends him back to Voldemort, > Snape has come to terms with the situation and prepared his story, > like a good academic that he is, he has made his `theory' as > watertight as he can before publication. Valky: Oh I can really see that now Srarquel, thankyou for pointing us here in the context of your examination. This actually opens a door that I am not sure I've seen opened before. The quote above is completely open to translation as a Legilimency conversation between Crouch and Snape. (In particular, the line "Best idea you've had all night," said Moody. begs for it to be read that way by those who who go back and carefully read IMHO) Personally I would translate it the latter way you proposed, leaving the mask of loyalty to Dumbledore that he uses as entirely for Harry's benefit (and ours) not at all for Crouch. To Crouch, I think, Snape is laying on the "DE ally, I am" act, thickly. I do believe that this passage indicates them being fully aware of each others underlying identities. Snape certainly isn't DD's man at this time, in that case. Dumbledore doesn't appear to have gotten many hints from Snape about Fake Moody's identity. I would have to say that this utterly favours your analysis, Saraquel. I'm impressed! But I am also responding to this point for another specific reason, THe FOe Glass. IIRC when in the room Snape looks very long at his face in the foe glass. If he had been previously playing ally to Crouch, then his face in that Foe Glass is going to create him some serious problems. Just assuming that it can be relied upon, if Bart Jr has seen Snapes face then Snape is under some serious threat from Barty, whether he escapes or is captured and put to trial once Barty knows Snape is *not* his ally he will turn on him and bring him down any way he can. If Barty escapes, Snape will be turned in to Voldemort, if Barty is captured then Snape could as easily be turned in to Fudge and his ministry for whatever he has helped Bart to accomplish in the year. Barty is soul sucked by a dementor and I am inclined to believe that Snape managed to put wheels on that cart, for the sake of covering his own ambiguous loyalties. I'm sure I've read this postulated before, but now I see enough evidence to totally agree with it as a possibility. > Saraquel: > Who ponders what JKR has in mind when Harry reminds us in HBP, that > somewhere DD had said to him evil is never really destroyed, the > battle goes on and you have to keep on fighting it. Anyone know the > cannon reference ? I'll have to go and look for it again, myself. Valky: This is at the end of PS/SS, the conversation between DD and Harry in the infirmary after Harry met Voldemort the first time From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Sep 8 04:11:21 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 04:11:21 -0000 Subject: Two replies - Dumbledores hand and Arnold the Pygmy Puff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139762 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" > > At the moment, I'm thinking that since it comes from Fred and Georges > store it definitely is *not* what it first appears, the Pygmy puffs > might not be miniature puffskeins at all but instead another of one of > the twins awful pranks, some hideous rare creature transfigured into a > puff but due to revert to its alter form when you least expect it. > Basically, this time, I think, it *is* the Twins setting off the > Sneakoscope. :D Giving a dangerous transfigured beast to their own sister? Hmm... well, there are some out there who think that Fred is ESE! but I'm not convinced yet. Allie From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 04:32:25 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 04:32:25 -0000 Subject: either must die at the hand of the other, Contradiction or Clue? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139763 Saraquel: Well, this is definitely the primordial soup of the Potterverse that we are all swimming around in here. I suppose it's down to whether, with enough random bumpings of ideas together, we will finally come up with a Potterverse probable reality :-) Thanks, Ceridwen and Valky for moving me on from a stuck place with some excellent lateral thinking. Ceridwen, I just loved your take on why Voldemort's body looks like a snake (reflecting his patronus), and Valky's comment about Voldemort now being too heavily weighted to the spirit side. Ok, I want to introduce magical power into the mix here and possibly equate it with spirit. I recently posted some musings on what magical power is: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139703 I'm going to base the next bit of my argument on parts of what I said in that post, so you may wish to read it, if you haven't already done so. One thing that has always puzzled me about the Potterverse, is the apparent ease with which objects can be magicked out of thin air. >From chairs and inanimate objects (many examples, DD in Harry's hearing) to organic things like food (Sandwiches in CoS) right up to living birds (Hermione in HBP). I have always wondered how that was possible. Continuing on from my speculations in my previous post, that magical power is an entity in itself, we could speculate that the world as we see it is created from it and probably our bodies as well. Although I still have a slight problem with this ? as there is a fine distinction to be made as to whether magical power is transmuted directly into matter, or does magical power function as a type of mould into which matter is poured, giving it shape and infusing it with life-power? Because of what happens in the CoS, I think I'm probably going to have to go with the latter ? more on that later. As I've said, you become a witch or wizard, because you have an ability to channel this power which muggles don't have. The bodies of both muggles and witches are both, however, made from this. In my last post, I speculated about having powers if you don't have a body, but I reread the passage in GoF, and I realised I was wrong. This is what Voldemort says: p566 "You all know that on the night I lost my powers and my body, I tried to kill him" and then on p567 "Only one power remained to me. I could possess the bodies of others." I speculate that the ability to possess a body is a power of the soul, as the soul inhabiting a body is what normally constitutes a human being in the Potterverse. But all other powers were lost. The memory of the spells was there because Voldemort also says p567 "for I had no body, and every spell which might have helped me required the use of a wand." So I am agreeing with Valky here, that Vapormort was in fact his damaged soul part and that the power to think/remember resides in the soul. But it also becomes clear that creating things from magical power does require a body. So putting all that together, it is possible to transmute magical power into real objects by use of the combination of body *and* soul. So now let's try and apply this to the two situations that are causing us problems ? what happened in the CoS and how Voldemort made both foetal body and reconstituted body and why he looks like a snake. In CoS, we have a chip of soul stashed in an inanimate object, which interacts with a complete soul with a body and an ability to tune into magical power (Ginny for short :-) ). We know that the HSP (Horcrux!Soul part, for anyone who is wondering) possesses Ginny and sucks her life force out of her ? not her soul, but her life force. So, going along with Ceridwen, let's call this her spirit, and further, also equate it to magical power. Once the HSP is in a body using possession, it has the ability to start to create something out of thin air ? a body for itself. It seems to me that the magical power supports the reality and physicality of the body (see my speculation about moulds above). As the life force/magical power is withdrawn so gradually Ginny's body, now increasingly unsupported by the mould, will cease functioning (physical death) and then decay away. Whereas the HSP is filling the mould he created whilst possessing Ginny with the life force/magical power/spirit, a mould for the body that it remembers having (memory is a property of soul), 16 year old Tom Riddle. What happens with Vapormort. Well, as a soul-fragment he has the ability still to possess a body. So he possesses animals. He cannot perform magical spells through them, because GoF p567 " their bodies were ill adapted to perform magic." But we have something special about unicorn blood and snake venom. Along comes Quirrel, who is possessed by the soul-fragment that is Voldemort. In this case, it would appear that Voldemort simply shares Quirrel's body with him. Obviously, in Voldemort's opinion, the PS, will provide him, somehow, with an immortal body. I must admit to being a bit confused here, as in an interview (sorry don't think it was the MN/LC one but another one when HBP was released), JKR said that Voldemort preferred the concept of horcruxes because they didn't rely on something external like a stone, which could be stolen or destroyed, but, in GoF, he mentions immortality in the context of the PS. GoF p567 "I did not manage to steal the Philosopher's Stone. I was not to be assured immortal life." Interestingly, Voldemort uses the term, immortal *life*. From what we know about the Elixir of Life, which is created from the stone, it prolongs the life of the body until you stop drinking it ? then you die. So the concept of life, is very much tied up, in this context at least, with a body ? and the body, as I have speculated is the thing created and sustained by the life-force/magical power, as distinct from the soul. Also, at this point, Quirrelmort drinks unicorn blood. We know that possession shortens the life of the thing possessed, and I think it's logical to assume that it applies to both humans and animals. So Quirrel's life-force is currently sustaining both of them and ebbing away. Hence, I think, the drinking of the unicorn blood to keep Quirrel alive. Is the burning up of Quirrel's body when he touches Harry in the CoS a result of the curse associated with drinking unicorn blood? With the PS and Quirrel gone, Voldemort is back to square one and needing to find some way of creating a body for himself. Enter Pettigrew and Nagini. From what he says on p 569 of GoF, it does seem that Vapormort did not possess Pettigrew, but used him to perform magic. "However, he was the able-bodied servant I needed, and poor wizard though he is, Wormtail was able to follow the instructions I gave him, which would return me to a rudimentary, weak body of my own, a body I would be able to inhabit while awaiting the essential ingredients for true rebirth a spell or two of my own invention a little help from my dear Nagini a potion concocted from unicorn blood, and the snake venom Nagini provided I was soon returned to an almost human form." So how did he do this? Well I have no idea, but it seems that it was somehow formed by transfiguring(?) the potion of unicorn blood and snake venom. Heave . Eeeew, that is so disgusting. Unlike the situation in CoS, he was not actually possessing anyone at the time, so it seems to be a different case from being able to conjure a body from `thin air'. In CoS, he didn't care about Ginny dying, so making a body out of her life-force was an option. But in this case, Voldemort states that (p569) "the means that I used to break the Memory Charm upon her (Bertha Jorkins) were powerful, and when I had extracted all useful information from her, her mind and body were both damaged beyond repair. She had now served her purpose. I could not possess her. I disposed of her." Which says to me, that he was not able to use Bertha in the same way as he had used Ginny. Presumably, Pettigrew was useful to him, so he did not want him dead, so he didn't posses him either. Somewhere in this mix, is the thought that proper human bodies are created (hopefully) out of love. The body that Voldemort has created (as I've said before) is a mix of something extremely pure (unicorn blood) something poisonous (snake venom) and something evil (the help of a traitor and murderer.) No wonder it is so disgusting. When Voldemort re-creates his body in the graveyard. He uses a different potion, and presumably the memory (as I'm speculating he did in CoS) of it retained in his fragmented soul. As he did not use unicorn blood, has he side-stepped something of that curse. If life is associated with the existence of the body, then it may be, that the foetal body no-longer exists and was not used (transfigured) to create the new one. Hence, if the inability to touch Harry was an effect of the unicorn blood curse, then it is no longer upon him. That's just a thought, and I'm not particularly tied to it. It now occurs to me, that in some senses, if Voldemort has created life for himself in the form of a body ? does he have some sort of life-debt to those who helped him create it? Harry, Tom Snr and Pettigrew are sort of parents to him. I think I'm going to stop here and mull things over a bit more. I'm quite pleased with this theory so far as it doesn't seem to be contradicted by canon. I hesitate to say it is supported by canon ? I think that's claiming too much :-) I hope you guys will pull it apart for me so that we can see where the inconsistencies lie. Other thoughts that I'd like to take up, but not in this post, are why Voldemort looks like a snake. Which I think, using Ceridwen's suggestion, could be worked into this framework. And also, using this framework, how does it reflect on the horcrux situation. Then we might almost be in a position to think about the prophecy (we can but dream!) Maybe, if you like what I've said so far, you'd like to take those up and run with them. Saraquel Who apologises for not yet replying to some posts on my OFH!Snape post. I'm on to it! From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Thu Sep 8 05:11:51 2005 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 05:11:51 -0000 Subject: FILK: Lavender Brown Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139764 Lavender Brown To the tune of Send in the Clowns, from Sondheim's A Little Night Music THE SCENE: Gryffindor Common Room. RON laments his wayward love life. RON: Isn't that her? Should I go hide? I'd thought that I'd be unbound Instead I'm tied To Lavvy Brown I lost one who's a paragon And now the girl who I've found Calls me "Won-Won" Lavender Brown She gets me down Just when I'd stopped being a dong Finally getting my chance to snog all day long Ent'ring the classroom again, I then saw I would flunk Without my Herm My ship is sunk Do I love Herm? She'd make me swoon If only I had greater range Than a teaspoon. But where's Lavvy Brown? Quick, hide me from Brown. And make it damn soon. Aren't I a dork? Isn't this dumb? Wanting someone who has both Cormac and Krum? But where's Lavvy Brown? I must escape Brown. Too late, here she comes .. - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From juli17 at aol.com Thu Sep 8 06:17:11 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 02:17:11 EDT Subject: Is Voldie alive? Message-ID: <1f4.117e7602.30513167@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139765 Mil wrote: Is this JKR's way, of telling us that LV isn't really alive?... I've noticed lots of posts, where there's speculation upon the prophecy, saying that "...neither can live, while the other survives..."... is Fudge telling us that indeed, unless HP is dead, LV cannot be completely alive?... and does this apply to HP as well (which for his case, may just mean that he won't be able to LIVE a "normal" life until LV is gone) Julie says: Something just popped into my head when I read two of the above sentences--Is JKR telling us that LV isn't really alive? "Neither can live while the other survives."--and then put them together again. In the prophecy wording there are potentially diverse definitions for "live" versus "survive"? If LV isn't really *alive,* can he be one of the neither in "neither can *live*?" Or is LV the one who only "survives"? In which case "neither" would refer to two additional people, one of whom is certainly Harry, and the other...Snape? Or someone else entirely? Whoever the two are, they can't live if LV survives. Or "as long as" LV survives, if you define "live" in the sense of being free of the chains LV has put around them, Harry (as Mil noted) because of the prophecy and LV's intent to kill him, and Snape because of his DE ties to LV that can only be fully broken by the death of one of them). Just thought I'd throw in one more possible interpretation! Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Sep 8 07:13:28 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 07:13:28 -0000 Subject: Is Voldie alive? In-Reply-To: <1f4.117e7602.30513167@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139766 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at a... wrote: > Mil wrote: > > Is this JKR's way, of telling us that LV isn't really alive?... > > I've noticed lots of posts, where there's speculation upon the > prophecy, saying that "...neither can live, while the other > survives..."... is Fudge telling us that indeed, unless HP is dead, > LV cannot be completely alive?... and does this apply to HP as well > (which for his case, may just mean that he won't be able to LIVE > a "normal" life until LV is gone) > > > > Julie says: > Something just popped into my head when I read two of the above > sentences--Is JKR telling us that LV isn't really alive? "Neither > can live while the other survives."--and then put them together > again. > In the prophecy wording there are potentially diverse definitions > for "live" versus "survive"? If LV isn't really *alive,* can he be > one of the neither in "neither can *live*?" Or is LV the one who > only "survives"? In which case "neither" would refer to two > additional people, one of whom is certainly Harry, and the > other...Snape? Or someone else entirely? > > Whoever the two are, they can't live if LV survives. Or "as long as" > LV survives, if you define "live" in the sense of being free of the > chains LV has put around them, Harry (as Mil noted) because > of the prophecy and LV's intent to kill him, and Snape because > of his DE ties to LV that can only be fully broken by the death of > one of them). Valky: This is definitely an interesting read on the Prophecy Julie. Now I never did senior units in the english language (explaining my shocking punctuation and sometimes sloppy grammar) so the majority of my technical understanding is resulting from experience rather than structured learning, however.. I think that reading the line "neither can live while the other survives" in this way, then implies a necessary interpretation of the preceeding line "either must die at the hand of the other", that assigns the same subjects. (I am happy to be told this is wrong BTW) Finally, all meaning that, if "neither" means Harry and someone else and "other" means Voldemort, then either also means Harry and someone else, who must both necessarily be killed by Voldemort, since the propositions are joined by the word "for". I am sure that Voldie would love this interpretation, but it just seems, to me, to spell inevitable doom for Harry. Valky From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 08:33:41 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 08:33:41 -0000 Subject: OFH!Snape scenario (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139767 Saraquel replies to Houyhnmhnm, Marianne and Valky: houyhnmhnm wrote: >Snape has an almost prissy regard for lawn order. He's still >carrying an enormous chip around on his shoulder over the fact that >the >rule-breaking, DD's trust-betraying Marauders were the fair-haired >sons, while School Boy Severus (who kept his promise to DD not to >reveal Lupin's secret for somewhere around 18 years) is treated like >the bastard step child. His biggest gripe about Harry is the way >Harry is allowed to get away with rule breaking. Saraquel: When I first read this, I thought no, because I was thinking about the creative Snape who breaks the rules in the potions book and is constantly looking for new ways to do things, and the spy!Snape, who has made up his own rule book. But then I reread it and saw what you were talking about, and absolutely agreed with you. Which is of course a seeming contradiction. But thinking about that seems to get to the heart of Snape. Yes I agree, he absolutely loves lawn order (I knew what you were talking about, I used to work in mental elf!) On the inside is someone who wants to write the rules ? who does write the rules for himself and then lives by them because he has created them and knows that they work. An intensely logical man, who plots his way through life. He has enormous respect for rules and I think that is what really p****s him off re the Marauders ? he follows the rules (if we are to believe his lack of punishment record), but doesn't get any attention for that from anyone, it doesn't bring him the respect that he thinks he deserves. I'm not totally sold on an OFH!Snape ? I did it as an exercise to see if it would work, as I'm not that keen on ESG! or ESE!Snape. But his wanting to follow his own rulebook, rather than the rulebook laid out by DD or LV, does seem to fit. Houynhmhnm wrote: >So, Snape could kill for revenge (or thought he could--we don't know >for sure) or to bring about a New World Order. But killing for fun? >("Half the Muggle killings back when You-Know-Who was in power were >done for fun".) I think it would disgust him. Marauders cubed. Saraquel: I absolutely agree with you here, I think Snape would be repulsed by killing for fun. I think he would kill for a world order that favoured his aims. If Bella is to be believed, and from the evidence in the book, Snape stays away from killing as much as he can. We don't know if DD was the first person he has ever used an AK on (speculation aside, I'm taking it at face value here.) I think he may have killed in his DE days, but perhaps only once. This could be part of his remorse ? just speculating Houynhmnhmn wrote: >The answer to the Snape question hinges on Snape's behavior with >regard to the prophecy, IMO. But what is the effect of >Snape's behavior WRT the prophecy on OFH!Snape? It seems that OFH! >Snape would be *very* curious to know the full contents of the >prophecy, curious enough, I would think, even to help LV obtain it. Marianne wrote: >I'm not so sure. OFH!Snape might be curious to know the prophecy, >but delivering it, or assisting Vmort in getting it, may compromise >his position straddling both sides. I think Snape may suspect, if >not know, that DD knows what the prophecy says. Why not delay as >long as possible and see how things pan out? Snape's not the one >charged with getting the prophecy out - that's Lucius' task. OFH! >Snape might even suspect that the whole thing could blow up in >Lucius' face, and if it does, it makes Snape's position with Vmort >even more secure. Saraquel: I like Marianne's take on this, and tend to agree. What Snape knows, is that Harry is the one with the power to vanquish Voldemort. Maybe he thinks that if he can find out what the power is, he can work out the rest of prophecy. Although, the delay in telling the Order to get to the MOM, could be Snape giving the DEs a chance to get the prophecy, without compromising himself with either side. He would then bank on finding out about the prophecy from whichever side finally got Harry after he had lifted the prophecy. Or possibly, hoping that Harry heard the prophecy himself, he could then use a little legilimency, knowing Harry's ineptitude at occlumency, to find out what it said. > Saraquel wrote: > > > Through Harry's action of saving Snape, Snape > > will realise the power of love that DD was talking > > about, but Snape never saw for himself. When he > > sees it, he will realise why Harry is special and > > go through his own process of realisation. Marianne wrote: >It's going to have to be a nifty piece of writing to carry that >off. I'm not saying that it can't be done, but Snape has seemed so >closed off from his emotions, other than when he flies into his >occational rages, that I have a hard time seeing him have this sort >of epiphany. I can't see him being at all happy about being saved by >Harry, in any way, other than going though a long period of soul- >searching afterward. Saraquel now: I agree that it will take a nifty piece of writing to carry it off, but I do have faith in JKR that if she wants that to happen, she can pull it off. This whole scenario is a result of following a Redeemed!Snape thread which has been obliquely confirmed by JKR. Sorry, I'm usually good on canon quotes but can never remember which JKR interview some nugget of information can be found in. Apparently, a long time ago someone asked her whether there was a redemptive theme where Snape was concerned, she said she was stunned and told them to read book 7. Hopefully, someone on the list is better than me and can provide a link. Actually, I don't have a hard time seeing Snape going through an epiphany. If he was confronted by the Power of Truth and Knowledge, he would accept it. If what I have laid out in this scenario does reflect Snape's qualities, then desire for Truth is uppermost, his dearest ambition. To see it revealed in all its awful beauty would certainly do something to him. When I said Harry saves Sanpe, I didn't mean in an ordinary way, like stunning someone who was attacking Snape. I meant that Harry, for the first time, and perhaps unknowingly, would connect with the power of love that DD has been talking about. I think it could well come as as much a surprise for Harry as for Snape and it will be overwhelming for both of them. It would then be clear to Snape, that he wasn't saved by Harry, but by the blinding light of Truth/Love. I really do think that JKR wants to make a big bang about love in these books, as I think you know :-) Snape may hide his emotions, but that does not say that his emotions are shallow. On the contrary, I think he feels very, very deeply and acutely, that is why he has to hide them. Not for nothing does he call those who wear their heart on their sleeves ? weak (OotP, when he is teaching Harry occlumency). He has been bullied by his father (?) and then the marauders. He knows how vulnerable showing any feeling can make you. But all those feelings of intense hurt are dammed up inside him ? break the dam with the power of love, and out they all come. I think that Snape's redemption can happen instantly. But how redeemed!Snape figures at the end of the book I'm not sure. Marianne wrote: >Marianne, who wishes to complement Saraquel on a description of OFH! >Snape that rings true to my ears Saraquel: Thank you Marianne. Although as I said above, I did it as an academic exercise but I do think it could work. Although, it would seem that Snape would have to do a lot of explaining to the reader, in order for them follow his thinking and behaviour throughout the series. Let's see what JKR has in store for us. Now in reply to Valky, who was commenting on the thread discussed by Vivian and Catlady regarding Snape and Crouch!Moody using legilmency on each other, and sussing out, what was what ? or rather, who was what. I used this to illustrate how OFH!Snape might respond. (Hope that's shortened the quote I would otherwise have to have put in!) Valky wrote: >To Crouch, I think, Snape is >laying on the "DE ally, I am" act, thickly. I do believe that this >passage indicates them being fully aware of each others underlying >identities. >Snape certainly isn't DD's man at this time, in that case. Saraquel: There is evidence that can be made for Crouch!Moody being suspicious that Snape or possibly Karkaroff is DD's man, but it happens way before the scene we are discussing. I've always wondered why Crouch! Moody insisted that Harry (and the other kids, but I think he was only concerned with Harry) should know what the Unforgiveable curses were and in particular how to throw it off the Imperius curse. He was very insistent ? he kept saying `You have to know" or words to that effect. Why did Harry *have* to know? It puzzled me because I thought that Crouch!Moody might well be in a position of wanting to put Harry under the Imperius curse, if things weren't going to plan. The explanation I came up with for myself was that Crouch! Moody thought he might need to use the Imperius in the Maze, which he did in the end, on the other contestants and didn't want Harry to accidentally get hit by it. However, another one springs to mind in the light of this thread. The Imperius curse is a dark magic and would not be used by DD or anyone on his side, but Crouch!Moody knows that both Snape and Karkaroff were both death eaters and might use it on Harry to further their own ends. That there is good canon evidence for suspecting the scene we have been discussing to be a case of, read between the legilimens lines, what we don't know is how long both of them have been doing this on each other. I'm not sure where this takes us in terms of Snape's allegiances, but for me it has thrown some more light on why Crouch!Moody insisted on them learning the unforgiveables. Valky wrote: >IIRC when in the room Snape looks very long at his face in the foe >glass. >If Barty escapes, Snape will be turned in to Voldemort, if Barty is >captured then Snape could as easily be turned in to Fudge and his >ministry for whatever he has helped Bart to accomplish in the year. >Barty is soul sucked by a dementor and I am inclined to believe that >Snape managed to put wheels on that cart, for the sake of covering >his own ambiguous loyalties. Saraquel: Nice thinking Valky. Thanks also to others for picking up on the RAB/Snape scenario. Saraquel From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Thu Sep 8 09:16:50 2005 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 05:16:50 -0400 Subject: Eavesdropper in Hog's Head/someone in the Weasley-shed? Message-ID: <003201c5b456$0bf06c20$54c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 139768 Finwitch >> In addition, I find it curious that Dumbledore tells Harry that 'only ones who know full contents of the Prophecy are in this shed', not that it's just the two of them. >>You know, 'only ones who know are in this shed' does sound to me as careful choosing of words that are true, but not necessarily meaning what you think they mean - Dumbledore does take Harry to that shed to have the discussion CathyD: The exact quote is: "There are only two people in the whole world who know the full content of the prophecy made about you and Lord Voldemort, and they are both standing in this smelly, spidery broom shed." Standing around outside was not a smart thing to do at that time. There could be eavesdroppers in invisibility cloaks or otherwise invisible. Going into that broom shed, where there was barely room for the two of them, their conversation would be private. Besides, the full prophecy was never spoken in the shed so still no one else would know. Not even Ron and Hermione have been given the full prophecy. At this point in the war, anyone who knows the full prophecy would be at greater risk than even Molly's famous clock could tell. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 10:29:37 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 10:29:37 -0000 Subject: Loyalty & Trust In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139769 "maddmorgan": > > Loyalty seems to be a key issue throuhout the books...although > Harry's trust is weak on the Snape issue for one who proudly claims > to be "Dumbledore's man". Finwitch: Oh? Particluarly after *Snape killed Dumbledore*? And um - Dumbledore himself has, in plain terms, told Harry that he can *make mistakes* and being the clever man he is, his mistakes do prove to be disastrous. Who ever said that being loyal means you believe they're all-knowing etc. No, it's that Harry's STILL following Dumbledore's orders - I just loved the way Harry told McGonagall: "Professor Dumbledore never told me to stop following his orders if he died". I even see in my mind's eye a possible-but-never-happened-scene for Sirius to simply refuse to believe Snape about the Occlumency issue - Saying that 'I don't believe Dumbledore would do that. Not since my godson saved Arthur's life with his vision. And I certainly believe Dumbledore to value truth too much to have somone teach my godson to lie - and certainly not without consulting me, as Harry's godfather and appointed guardian' or something to that effect -- having great faith in Dumbledore, but NONE in Snape. I wonder what would have happened then? Besides, I'm glad that Harry *finally* told Dumbledore that yes, Dumbledore trusts Snape but he, Harry, does not. I've been wishing someone to say that to Dumbledore for ages... I wonder - is Aberforth coming to the picture? If Harry refers to Aberforth as Dumbledore (which IS also Aberforth's surname and therefore entirely truthful as Harry's not on first-name terms with him, they have hardly met...), Minerva&al. knowing that Albus Dumbledore *has* given Harry orders he didn't wish anyone to know about, orders Harry has refused to tell... it does raise interesting possibilities, you know. And um -- maybe Aberforth does indeed know MOST of the prophecy, but not each and every line of it. If he was the one throwing Snape out, he *heard* the 3 first lines. Suppose he went back afterwards, and heard some more -- missing just a small part of it. And, there's nothing to say that Aberforth doesn't know of the horcrux-things, or that Albus didn't tell him everything AFTER having that discussion with Harry. Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 10:58:50 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 10:58:50 -0000 Subject: Harry's character development In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139770 "lupinlore" : > > The fact is most people learn by finding answers to practical problems > that they immediately face. Most people do not read books, visit > research libraries, or engage in long discussions with knowledgable > friends over situations and subjects with which they are not > immediately involved. When they need to know about something or are > faced with having to do something, they learn about it. And these > people function just fine in society, and in fact tend to monopolize > its highest and most powerful strata. Schools happen to be structured > and staffed by people who like books and research -- meaning people > who are unusual with regard to most of humanity. Finwitch: This reminds me of an old jokingly expressed definition on teachers: People who tell us how deal with problems we wouldn't have without them. And er, presenting the bezoar for multi-antidote is a very non- theoretical thing... But let's look at these things: School may wish to teach how to brew an antidote - just in case a bezoar doesn't work - I think that Basilisk Venom is one where bezoar doesn't work. But I doubt even Snape could brew an antidote for it in time - it appears to be very fast-acting. Phoenix-tears do work, though, and you *don't* even know how to brew a potion... Dunno, maybe Phoenix-tears could have healed Bill's werewolf-bites-- unfortunately Fawkes was still singing his lament... Oh, and what about the self-stirring cauldrons meaning you don't have to know the Potion-theory about stirring? The Star-Models meaning you don't need to know how to calculate Star-charts? Inventions *do* come out from practical problems or by a lucky accident much more often than understanding a theory... Because a theory is just a theory, not the final and absolute truth of how things are... Finwitch From vmonte at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 11:57:41 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 11:57:41 -0000 Subject: Depth? Things to take on their face value (Was: Sirius' loyalty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139771 Nora wrote: So, here's a tangent for you. Let me repeat the comments: "I think the question really is do you, as readers, believe that Sirius would have died? Because Sirius is saying that...Right, well, that's what I believed." In other words, JKR is saying that Sirius is utterly sincere in this situation, and his declaration is pretty much to be taken at face value. This seems to me to be, to the chagrin of some, a tendency that's increasing in strength through the series. For entertainment's sake, let's pull out another one which struck me very strongly: "...because the plan was, which I really hope I fulfilled, is that the reader, like Harry, would gradually discover Ginny as pretty much the ideal girl for Harry. She's tough, not in an unpleasant way, but she's gutsy. He needs to be with someone who can stand the demands of being with Harry Potter, because he's a scary boyfriend in a lot of ways. He's a marked man. I think she's funny, and I think that she's very warm and compassionate. These are all things that Harry requires in his ideal woman." So, it's also obvious that JKR thinks, absolutely unproblematically, that Ginny is *the* perfect girl for Harry, end stop no doubts no questions asked. This is, to put it mildly, an issue that some readers have had issues with. Is there more 'depth' to be read into Harry's attraction to Ginny? I can think of other things. Dumbledore's assertions about Harry: his heart saved him and not his mind, Harry has a fundamentally pure heart. Enough potential treacle to make us look for a hankie, but all also intended in utter sincerity. I'd offer the proposal that there are many things in the series which JKR as the author *intends* to be taken at their face value, and accepted by the reader. Correspondingly, this means that the subversive readings (which do not accept these things) are highly unlikely to receive any validation or confirmation in canon. Of course, nothing can stop the determined theorist. I'd love to hear what things y'all might put in this category. To pick back up... vmonte: Yes, I agree completely. JKR's comments that "it's our choices that determine who we are" is also something that we should never forget. Snape and Draco consistently choose to behave badly to the other characters in the series. JKR is not going to let them off the hook for their actions. Snape is not a vampire and a wolf did not bite Draco. She is not going to give them an illness to explain away their nastiness. Even Fenrir, who does have an illness, and is bad, chooses to do harm when he is not in werewolf mode. I'm not sure why it's so hard for people to take what Sirius says at face value. The poor man's been sitting in Azkaban over a decade feeling bad about his part in his best friend's death. He made Peter the secret keeper, and he feels bad about it. Vivian From gonca at snet.net Thu Sep 8 03:05:47 2005 From: gonca at snet.net (Gonca Izmirli) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:05:47 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Eavesdropper in Hog's Head/someone in the Weasley-shed? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <431FAA8B.4030800@snet.net> No: HPFGUIDX 139772 Finwitch wrote: > In addition, I find it curious that Dumbledore tells Harry that 'only > ones who know full contents of the Prophecy are in this shed', not > that it's just the two of them. Exactly. There is also the spider on Dumbledore's hat! (twice mentioned, same night) Hi, by the way; I'm new to the group. Cheers. Gonca From theadimail at yahoo.co.in Thu Sep 8 13:00:46 2005 From: theadimail at yahoo.co.in (theadimail) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 13:00:46 -0000 Subject: Snape's love interest Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139773 There has been lot of speculation that Snape's love interest was Lily. Though this looks unlikely after the pensieve scene in Book5, many people have either taken it for granted or simply have not taken any stand on the matter. It is one of the least argued points in the cannon. I think however that Snape's love interest is Narcissa Malfoy. It is his love for her that prompted Snape to make the Unbreakable Vow. I also think that Narcissa is aware of the fact and that is why, she turned to Snape for help in the first place. How does the theory sound? Regards, Adi From gonca at snet.net Thu Sep 8 03:53:25 2005 From: gonca at snet.net (Gonca Izmirli) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:53:25 -0400 Subject: Badger, Eagle, Snake and the Lion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <431FB5B5.2090902@snet.net> No: HPFGUIDX 139774 Hi, I don't know if this was discussed before but here it goes: I think that the hiding places of the horcruxes will be related to the owners' houses. Slytherin's locket used to be in the water (or they had to go through a lot of water to get to it). So I think that: Hufflepuff's will be buried in the earth and Ravenclaw's somewhere high (in the air??). Also I think that HP will need the help of someone from those houses to get each horcrux. Maybe Draco Malfoy will help HP&Friends find the original locket (he seems to be changing lately) and a way to destroy it. Someone from Hufflepuff house (I think Ernie MacMillan) will help them find (reach?) HH's cup and destroy it, and of course (who else) Luna will help them with the Ravenclaw thing (remember how comfortable she was on the thestral unlike the others?). Then of course, they will need the lion's heart to challenge Nagini and finally HP will face Voldemort all by himself. I also have a feeling that HP will not have to kill LV; he will simply overpower him. Since neither can live while the other survives and HP will survive (because he is surrounded with love); during the final bout LV will realize that there are worse things than death; which is never loving anyone and never being loved, and that admission will finish him off because he cannot bear love. At the Ministry, LV couldn't stay in HP after HP started thinking about Sirius. Love simply drove him out. I digress. So I think that; lion, badger, eagle and snakelike qualities will come in handy in the last book. Please, let me know what you think... Cheers... Gonca From daniel.blakey at stcatz.ox.ac.uk Thu Sep 8 10:57:42 2005 From: daniel.blakey at stcatz.ox.ac.uk (dan_blakey) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 10:57:42 -0000 Subject: Horcrux predictions (Was: JKR's Ambiguities) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139775 Susan O'Bones wrote: > I think one of the Horcruces is Gryffindor's sword, known to be > the only remaining relic of Godric Gryffindor. Supposedly it's > been "safe" in the Headmaster's office all this time. SNIP My reservation about this idea is that Dumbledore realised that the idea of using the four founders' artefacts would be extremely attractive to Voldy. The sword is the only known remaining possession of Griffindor (to us and Harry), so one would have imagine Dumbledore *must* have thought to give it a once over, check for enchantments etc indicative of it being a horcrux, "magic always leaves a trace"! Dan From lolita_ns at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 11:49:44 2005 From: lolita_ns at yahoo.com (lolita_ns) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 11:49:44 -0000 Subject: Eavesdropper in Hog's Head/someone in the Weasley-shed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139776 Finwitch wrote: > As for Trelawney in&out trance while giving the Prophecy, well I > suppose it happened every time there was three dots in the prophecy > line. > > 'The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord Approaches' > Snape's probably listening at the door to this, which Trelawney > notices. Someone is Approaching at this point, Aberforth that is > (the bartender)... born to those who have thrice defied him... > (Aberforth begins to drag Snape away)... born as the Seventh Month > dies... (Aberforth's dragging Snape and throws him out so Snape > hears no more.) Lolita: The only problems with this interpretation are the following: 1) Trelawney says that she started feeling a little dizzy, and then, the next thing she remembers is Snape standing outside the door making some poor excuse as to why he was there. That is ONE interruption, not several. She doesn't say, 'Oh, I started feeling a bit dizzy, and there was a commotion. We were interrupted by Severus Snape. Then I started feeling dizzy again...' She got into trance, and when she 'awoke' she saw Snape. That's it. And also, she said that Aberfoth dragged Snape INTO the room. Now, that would mean that, even if he had interrupted her, he would have been in the same room with her for the remainder of the prophecy. And that doesn't hold water. So, my guess is that, after Trelawney had delivered the prophecy and Aberfoth showed up with Snape, DD said a few more sentences to Trelawney, she left, and he remained in the room with Snape, for a little chat. I am almost positive that it was at this moment they conconted the whole 00Snape thing, and I would bet that it was DD who approached SS, not the other way round. However, this whole issue remains to be resolved in Harry Potter and the Final Showdown. 2) Harry SAW the memeory of the prophecy in the pensieve. JKR said that it's objective, and you will agree that there is no reason for DD to tamper with his own memeory he intends to show no one (well until he finally reaches the decision to share the information with Harry). So, pensive is OBJECTIVE. The Trelawney in the pensive spoke WITHOUT INTERRUPTIONS. Therefore, Snape DID hear the whole prophecy. Or, that is according to the facts presented in the books. However, I believe that Rowling indeed wanted to have Snape hear only the beginning of the prophecy. And all this ambiguity which positively invites us to over-interpret the whole sorry episode may be, I am afraid, just another instance of sloppiness on her part. Or possibly not. It may be yet another red-herring. 3) There are sequences of three dots in Trelawney's second prophecy, too (the one Harry witnessed). And there was no interruption whatsoever. (see PoA, UK adult version, p. 238) And, speaking of sheds and spiders, and all... If you comb through the books, Snape is more often associated with spiders than with bats. (he walked like a spider when he was 15, his handwriting is spidery, he has glittering black eyes - just like the spider in the maze, in 'Snape's worst memory' he clutches at Harry's arm with a spidery grip - or maybe his fingers are just unnaturally long - he lives at Spinner's End and spins yarns to either DD or LV or most probably both... etc.) I once read an editorial on MuggleNet about a possibility that Snape is an unregistered spider animagus. Personally, I wouldn't like it to be true, for purely aesthetic reasons - introducing yet ANOTHER unregistered animagus at this point of the story arc would be a rather poor plot device. Not to mention, a highly unsatisfying Deus Ex Machina. And I don't see what could be gained by it. But Rowling is certainly not going to ask for my litetary expertise, so it's quite possible that she would choose to go there. And then there is that fishy comment about Snape's Boggart and Patronus being confidential, in order not to reveal a lot. Hmm... (Just for the record, I think that the Boggart is probably Lupin) Cheers, Lolita. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Sep 8 14:21:09 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 14:21:09 -0000 Subject: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort (was: Re: Draco's culpability...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139777 > Betsy Hp: > Aha! I have canon! First, here's proof that Draco did not set off > the Mark floating above the tower: > And here's proof that Draco was on the tower *before* the barrier > was set up: > > This is two chances for JKR to make absolutely clear that Draco > bares the Dark Mark: he sets off the Mark in the sky; he makes it > past the barrier, either going up or coming down. But JKR chooses > to give Draco a pass both times. I'm becoming more and more > confident that Draco is not a Death Eater at the conclusion of HBP. Jen: JKR is sneaky that way and personally these omissions are very persuasive. But what about Draco's left arm? Why was he favoring it and showing it to Borgin? When Harry notices these things about Draco he's not thinking Draco is in cahoots with Voldemort & the DE's, so can't be POV. Of the two theories so far, a dark mark and a werewolf bite, the dark mark seems most likely. So what's behind door #3? The only thing I can think of is Draco somehow tried to make his own dark mark on his arm to 'persuade' Borgin, but it wasn't actually a link to LV like the DE's have. But that may be cheesy . "Draco's Detour" to me means just that, a slide into Voldemort's camp for a time and then a slide back out. That's simplified for sure, but sometimes JKR's simplest clues have the most meaning. Not that I think Draco will live, mind you. Hate to say it but I'm not certain even Snape can save him and in fact, could see the possiblity of Snape being ordered to kill Draco for his failure of will. Whew! How's that for adding fuel to the already smoking Snape fire? Jen From mimbeltonia at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 14:06:35 2005 From: mimbeltonia at yahoo.com (mimbeltonia) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 14:06:35 -0000 Subject: Eavesdropper in Hog's Head/someone in the Weasley-shed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139778 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lolita_ns" wrote: snip snip > > 2) Harry SAW the memeory of the prophecy in the pensieve. JKR said > that it's objective, and you will agree that there is no reason for > DD to tamper with his own memeory he intends to show no one (well > until he finally reaches the decision to share the information with > Harry). So, pensive is OBJECTIVE. The Trelawney in the pensive spoke > WITHOUT INTERRUPTIONS. Therefore, Snape DID hear the whole prophecy. Mimbeltonia: I agree that Trelawney was not interrupted, so either as you say Snape heard it all (contrary to what Dumbledore claims) - or - Aberforth discovers Snape, pulls him away from the door, and during the last part of the prophecy they argue loudly, so that neither can hear the end of it. Aberforth never puts his ear to the key hole, and probably hears nothing at all. (As the prophecy smashed at the ministry, a load of death eaters and order members were present, though all unable to hear anything of it in the commotion.) After a few _seconds_ (it does not take long to say a few sentences, and this must all hae happened rather fast I think) Trelawny is about to get to her senses and Albus (or Aberforth) opens the door. Snape was there because he was keeping an eye on Dumbledore, not because anyone knew there would be a prophecy to hear, and will probably not have had the presence of mind to keep pressing his ear to the door when he saw Aberforth approaching. Rather, he pretends to simply have taken a wrong turn. -Mimbeltonia From maddmorgan at adelphia.net Thu Sep 8 14:13:57 2005 From: maddmorgan at adelphia.net (maddmorgan) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 14:13:57 -0000 Subject: Loyalty & Trust In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139779 Finwitch: > Oh? Particluarly after *Snape killed Dumbledore*? And um - > Dumbledore himself has, in plain terms, told Harry that he can > *make mistakes* and being the clever man he is, his mistakes do > prove to be disastrous. Who ever said that being loyal means you > believe they're all-knowing etc. maddmorgan: Oh, I'm not arguing that Harry has no reason to dislike and distrust Snape...He certainly does. But Dumbledore's admission that he can make mistakes doesn't necessarily mean his trust in Snape is one. A little patience here...I'm not as deep a reader as some of you seem to be...but what mistakes of Dumbledore's have we actually seen? Leaving Harry with the horrible Dursleys? Not telling Harry the whole ugly truth right from the beginning? The alternatives to those decisions might have been more damaging to the child, if not fatal. That he brought Riddle to Hogwarts in the first place? Again alternatives...a powerful though untrained wizard wreaking havoc amongst the muggles or a chance to influence him for the better (and keep an eye on him in the meantime)? Even though it didn't work, I'm not sure it was a mistake to try. Okay, all of this has been much discussed...So...it's possible (almost certain) that I've missed things...What mistakes has Dumbledore made? maddmorgan From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 15:01:25 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 15:01:25 -0000 Subject: Eavesdropper in Hog's Head/someone in the Weasley-shed? In-Reply-To: <003201c5b456$0bf06c20$54c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139781 > > CathyD: > The exact quote is: "There are only two people in the whole world who know the full content of the prophecy made about you and Lord Voldemort, and they are both standing in this smelly, spidery broom shed." Finwitch: Thanks, Cathy, but I still find the wording curious. We have the ambiguos words 'full content' and 'standing in this -- shed'. As Gotcha mentioned, there was also this spider in Dumbledore's hat - and why would he say the shed was *smelly and spidery* - which isn't very nice thing to say - UNLESS he was giving a clue that he was er - 'treating truth with great caution'? So -- I have a few ideas. I think that Snape *only* heard a part of it - Albus didn't have to trust only Severus' word for it, there was this brother of his as well... Now, Trelawney's prophecy was NOT interrupted - Never said it was. Just that the dots may be relevant to some events, but... Aberforth spotted SS who had his ear on the door and knocked him out. Trelawney keeps on and *both* Dumbledores heard the full content of it. They may even have same INITIALS! Albus Percifal Wulfric Brian Dumbledore - and Aberforth Podmore Wilberforce Brett Dumbledore - don't know that, but if we only take first name and surname, they're both A.D. So why not take these similar intials all the way? As for the full content, well - I suppose the persons involved are part of it. and only the ADs know that... I think Albus has kept - Aberforth's part in it a secret. A secret only two of them know. Finwitch From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 15:36:51 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 15:36:51 -0000 Subject: Horcrux predictions (Was: JKR's Ambiguities) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139782 Susan O'Bones wrote: I think one of the Horcruces is Gryffindor's sword, known to be the only remaining relic of Godric Gryffindor. Supposedly it's been "safe" in the Headmaster's office all this time. SNIP dan_blakey: My reservation about this idea is that Dumbledore realised that the idea of using the four founders' artefacts would be extremely attractive to Voldy. The sword is the only known remaining possession of Griffindor (to us and Harry), so one would have imagine Dumbledore *must* have thought to give it a once over, check for enchantments etc indicative of it being a horcrux, "magic always leaves a trace"! Amiable Dorsai: But you know, the sword *isn't* the only known relic of Godric Gryffindor--there's also the Sorting Hat. Isn't it interesting that Dumbledore overlooked that? A couple of things: 1)Armando Dippet liked and trusted Tom Riddle. I can easily imagine Riddle spending unsupervised time in the Headmaster's office, as Harry has done. 2) Magical artifacts, like the Goblet of Fire, and, presumably, the Sorting Hat, can be confunded. So If Riddle managed to make the Hat a Horcrux, the Hat wouldn't necessarily know. 3) The trace of magic left be the Horcrux-making process would be masked by the Hat's own magic, so it would be difficult to detect. 4)The Hat is a treasured artifact in a very secure place. Imagine the irony of one of the Horcruxes being guarded by the Hogwarts Headmaster--if Riddle has any sort of a sense of humor, that had to appeal to him. Amiable Dorsai From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 15:46:12 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 15:46:12 -0000 Subject: Horcrux predictions (Was: JKR's Ambiguities) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139783 > Amiable Dorsai: > But you know, the sword *isn't* the only known relic of Godric > Gryffindor--there's also the Sorting Hat. > > Isn't it interesting that Dumbledore overlooked that? > > A couple of things: 1)Armando Dippet liked and trusted Tom Riddle. I > can easily imagine Riddle spending unsupervised time in the > Headmaster's office, as Harry has done. zgirnius: I kind of like the Sorting Hat as Horcrux theory, it *does* have some nice irony as you point out in the part I snipped. But does the timing you suggest work well? This would mean that Riddle had made at least two Horcruxes before leaving school, right? From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Sep 8 15:53:15 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 15:53:15 -0000 Subject: Horcrux predictions (Was: JKR's Ambiguities) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139784 > > Amiable Dorsai: > But you know, the sword *isn't* the only known relic of Godric > Gryffindor--there's also the Sorting Hat. > > Isn't it interesting that Dumbledore overlooked that? > > A couple of things: 1)Armando Dippet liked and trusted Tom Riddle. I > can easily imagine Riddle spending unsupervised time in the > Headmaster's office, as Harry has done. 2) Magical artifacts, like > the Goblet of Fire, and, presumably, the Sorting Hat, can be > confunded. So If Riddle managed to make the Hat a Horcrux, the Hat > wouldn't necessarily know. 3) The trace of magic left be the > Horcrux-making process would be masked by the Hat's own magic, so it > would be difficult to detect. 4)The Hat is a treasured artifact in a > very secure place. Imagine the irony of one of the Horcruxes being > guarded by the Hogwarts Headmaster--if Riddle has any sort of a sense > of humor, that had to appeal to him. > > Amiable Dorsai Hickengruendler: I agree about the Sorting Hat being a Horcrux, but for another reason. Both the Sorting Hat and Dumbledore warned the students, that dividing them is wrong and that they only have a chance to survive, if they unite. And yet the Hat is the very same artefact that does divide the students. If the Sorting Hat does not exist anymore, than there won't be any Sorting process anymore, at least not as we know it. After all, it isn't just some object that was bewitched, in it is a part of the essence of the four founders included, and I am not sure, if they would be able to get that essence, once the Hat is destroyed. Therefore the Sorting Hat being a Horcrux that needs to be destroyed makes a lot of sense in a symbolic way, IMO. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Sep 8 15:57:47 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 15:57:47 -0000 Subject: Good Slytherins was Re: looks determining character In-Reply-To: <002101c5b415$91064fb0$803a79a5@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139785 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > >vmonte: > JKR needs to show a Slytherin that is on the good side. > > >CathyD: > One word: SNAPE. > > vmonte: > One word: Nope! > > > > > Sherry now: > > I have to agree with Vivian on this. In fact, when the character of > Slughorn was introduced I thought, aha! At last, our good Slytherin > character. On the other hand, if Snape turns out to be good, he's almost too noble to be a worthy example of Slytherin. Out for himself Snape would be another manifestation of the ultimate Slytherin, but a good and honorable Snape would almost seem to be more Gryffindor than Gryffindor! (tongue firmly planted in cheek!) Pippin: Mcgonagall claimed that all four houses had a noble history. Just as there are parselmouths among the great and good, there may yet be Slytherins. I don't think the typical Slytherin is as self-centred as the Slytherin ideal, just as the typical Gryffindor isn't as altruistic as Harry. I've puzzled over whether the Sorting Hat's "Or perhaps in Slytherin/You'll make your real friends" was supposed to be ironic. But in HBP Dumbledore says he is surprised that Draco would let Fenrir into the school "where his friends live" We know from his conversation with Voldemort that Dumbledore doesn't take that word lightly. It seems that Dumbledore doesn't assume that Slytherins aren't capable of friendship. But according to the Hat, it's difficult for Slytherins to make real friends outside their House, though Godric and Salazar were once close. I am beginning to think the difference as a whole reflects a cultural misunderstanding rather than something innate. Though certainly Voldemort has been robbed of his capacity to love and Harry some how dealt an extra portion, that does not seem true of Slytherins and Gryffindors generally. The Slytherins may not be, on average, innately more selfish than the Gryffindors. They may simply reflect a culture that's more accepting of open self-interest. Gryffindors attempt to keep their self-interest decently cloaked, for example McGonagall's sly insults to Trelawney or Lupin's sly insults to Snape as opposed to Snape's open disparagement of Lupin. To Harry it seems Snape is so mean-spirited that he's unable to control himself, but it may be that he comes from a culture that doesn't see any virtue in pretending that mean-spiritedness doesn't exist. These kinds of differences exist in real life. I remember reading the introduction to a collection of stories by the Yiddish author Sholem Aleichem, in which the translator explained that she had had to soften the language which the characters used to trade insults, because an English-speaking reader would never believe that people who spoke that way to each other could really be friends. In other words, for Harry to discover the good Slytherins, he may have to learn to think about Slytherin behavior in a different way. Pippin From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Sep 8 15:58:02 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 15:58:02 -0000 Subject: Depth? Things to take on their face value (Was: Sirius' loyalty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139786 Nora: > I can think of other things. Dumbledore's assertions about Harry: > his heart saved him and not his mind, Harry has a fundamentally > pure heart. Enough potential treacle to make us look for a hankie, > but all also intended in utter sincerity. > > I'd offer the proposal that there are many things in the series > which JKR as the author *intends* to be taken at their face value, > and accepted by the reader. Correspondingly, this means that the > subversive readings (which do not accept these things) are highly > unlikely to receive any validation or confirmation in canon. Of > course, nothing can stop the determined theorist. Jen: My theme at the moment is 'the simplest may be the best explanation' so I agree with this, Nora . This idea was certainly at the forefront of HBP, when Harry/Dumbledore wrapped up the loose ends from OOTP: No, Occlumency wasn't needed after all and Harry was no good at closing his mind anyway. Inhabiting Harry's body and feeling his love was enough to send Voldemort running. Harry is 'over' his anger and funk of OOTP because Sirius wouldn't want him wallowing, and life's too short. Harry is Dumbledore's man through-and-through because Dumbledore is going to die...erm...I mean because Harry had a miraculous change of heart from OOTP.....well....that one needs no explanation, right? ;) Other simple ideas: Draco really did make a detour through the DE camp and had a true change of heart. Lupin & Tonks are for real-- more love in the world. Then we have the biggie, the one which is harder to accept: Dumbledore trusts Snape and since Dumbledore is so clever he sometimes makes comparatively 'huger' mistakes than the rest. Hmmmm. Still can't accept that one quite yet. Not because it would make Dumbledore a fool, since choosing to love and trust over feeling hate and suspicion are 'generally preferable' as DD (JKR) would say. But it would negate Dumbledore's life work, in a sense. He trusted someone he shouldn't have, allowed him into Hogwarts & the Order, and it led to death and destruction of many of the things he holds dear. And the chain is just beginning, the ramifications of Dumbledore's huge mistake would mount in Book 7 if Snape truly is working at Voldemort's side. If this one is true, the real redemption will be Harry righting Dumbledore's wrong. Oh, I'm probably overstating it. Hogwarts will re-open and hopefully McGonagall will have the power to continue admitting Muggleborns, safeguarding the house-elves, centaurs, merepeople and the rest. And the Order will support Harry and he'll defeat Voldemort, so no harm done if DD made a mistake about Snape, right? *Sigh*. It would be a let-down though, to see all the things DD stood for be in doubt, to crumble away, causing the loss of more people dear to Harry and possibly Harry himself in the end. *Sigh again*. Darn it! Dumbledore gave up his life, too! The moment he heard the prophecy and found out Voldemort was going to act on it, his life became wrapped up in Harry and the prophecy. He deserved to die in dignity *sniff* Not that he would care, as long as his picture stays on the chocolate frog cards...... Jen From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Sep 8 16:00:50 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 16:00:50 -0000 Subject: Horcrux predictions (Was: JKR's Ambiguities) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139787 > > zgirnius: > I kind of like the Sorting Hat as Horcrux theory, it *does* have some > nice irony as you point out in the part I snipped. But does the timing > you suggest work well? This would mean that Riddle had made at least > two Horcruxes before leaving school, right? Hickengruendler: Not necessarily. We don't know when Riddle made the diary and the ring a Horcrux. He stole the ring from Morfin as some sort of trophy, but this was before he learned from Slughorn more about the Horcruxes. That means the ring became later a Horcrux, maybe much later. It's very well possible that Tom decided to make the Sorting Hat his first Horcrux, because he knew that he might not have much time to get his hands on it anymore, while the ring and the diary are in his posession, and he therefore could bewitch them anytime. Also, at this time he killed already at least four people: His father, his grandparents and Moaning Myrtle. Even if Myrtle doesn't count (I`m not sure about it) his soul should have already split three times, and he therefore had already the opportunity to make more than one Horcrux. From ryokas at hotmail.com Thu Sep 8 17:33:08 2005 From: ryokas at hotmail.com (Miikka R.) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:33:08 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's upcoming letter Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139788 Here's another of my pet theories. It's been a very popular thought all the while that Harry's expertise in magic won't be the deciding factor in defeating Voldemort - after all, he wouldn't have honed his skills near the Dark Lord's level by the end of the seventh book. Then came HBP and we now know that there's a long and arduous additional step in the way. Luckily, Harry is determined to achieve it. Unfortunately, from where I'm sitting he also seems to have gone insane. He's a teenage wizard, a good one for his age group but no Gandalf. Locating, retrieving and destroying a Horcurx are three separate extremely difficult and dangerous projects, and Harry and his friends are going to do it several times over. The whole situation reminds me of WWI, where young soldiers learned at the very first charges that integrity and courage are poor defense against machine guns. Since it's no use crying over spilt hope, we'll need some way to give the good guys a fighting chance. Here's a possible solution. DD was a man of careful planning and extremely difficult to stump, an integral part of the fight against Voldemort and with full foreknowledge going into a potentially lethal situation. Put these things together and a few days into his summer vacation, Harry'll receive an unexpected letter that goes something like this: "Dear Harry, If you are reading this, I am dead. You didn't think that as Voldemort's other mortal enemy I wouldn't plan for this eventuality, now did you? Now then - you're a smart and brave young man, but up against the most powerful wizard of your time. You can't hope to triumph as you stand now. Should you end up not being able to return to Hogwarts, here's how to destroy a Horcrux, a variety of my best tricks and inventions, the locations of a cache or two of powerful anti-Dark items, what happened to my hand and everything I know about Lord Voldemort. Happy hunting, try not to get killed too much. PS. I was quite serious about the socks. Albus Dumbledore" - Kizor From ibchawz at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 14:41:31 2005 From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 14:41:31 -0000 Subject: STWNSHH (was Size) In-Reply-To: <004601c5b0b7$2d7d0940$704b6d51@f3b7j4> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139789 Ffred wrote: 123 fans supporting 15 employees of the club (I assume that the Department of Magical Games and Sports pays the referees) means that there are just 8 fans' gate money for each employee! Plus (given that there's no evidence of things like corporate sponsorship or even corporations to do the sponsoring) those fans' gate money has to cover equipment and upkeep of the ground. ibchawz responds: I enjoyed reading your theory on this subject. It reminded me of the email that gets forwarded around every Christmas that technically describes why Santa Claus can't exist. I don't have my GOF book with me, so I am quoting the following stuff from memory. Before the match began, the scoreboard was flashing advertisements for various products (I think Magical Mess Remover was one of them), so there is some sort of corporate sponsorship. Another thing I recall (let me know if my memory is faulty) is that the stadium for the Quidditch World Cup was built to seat 100,000 people. Considering that overseas countries were represented by rather small groups of fans due to the logistics of travel, I think it is safe to assume that the majority of the attendees were from Europe (for the sake of discussion, I assume 70%). If the UK has only a WW population of 3000, that leaves 67,000 to come from other European countries. If this is the case, the UK actually has a relatively small population of wizards/witches in comparison to other European countries. Since JKR has stated that math and numbers (including school and WW populations) are not her strong point, I don't think she really gave this aspect of the WW a lot of forethought. On the other had, she stated that she had background details for each of the students in Harry's year at Hogwarts. I guess she just put more energy into character development than she did into other details. ibchawz From lady.indigo at gmail.com Thu Sep 8 15:22:01 2005 From: lady.indigo at gmail.com (lady.indigo at gmail.com) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 11:22:01 -0400 Subject: Snape's love interest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <63378ee705090808221d96826d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139790 On 9/8/05, theadimail wrote: > > There has been lot of speculation that Snape's love interest was Lily. > Though this looks unlikely after the pensieve scene in Book5, many > people have either taken it for granted or simply have not taken any > stand on the matter. It is one of the least argued points in the > cannon. > I think however that Snape's love interest is Narcissa Malfoy. It is > his love for her that prompted Snape to make the Unbreakable Vow. I > also think that Narcissa is aware of the fact and that is why, she > turned to Snape for help in the first place. > How does the theory sound? > Regards, > Adi Your theory has been posed before, and there was a whole thread on it, though I'm not sure if you took part in that; I wasn't paying too much attention to it. Just wanted to correct you here, though: Snape/Lily fans don't *discount* Book 5 when posing their theories, they in fact take it as a major piece of evidence. Why does Lily seem so surprised when Snape, a Slytherin who runs with a prejudiced pureblood crowd, calls her by that name? Why is this, of all things, Snape's worst memory? Why does Lily have such a huge role in the memory at all, really, if the memory is dealing with Snape and his relationship with the Marauders? Snape/Lily fans take all that into account as major pieces of evidence FOR our ship. (And yes, it's mine too.) I think there's a lot more to be said for Snape/Lily and the connections between their characters than Snape/Narcissa, which I can see the reasoning for but it doesn't 'fit' the same way for me. Just my opinion, of course. But I don't often look at a ship and feel very strongly that it's going in a canon direction. And I feel that way about Snape/Lily, even if it's just on an unrequited crush level. - Lady Indigo (who's still here, just busy) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Sherry at PebTech.net Thu Sep 8 16:42:11 2005 From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 16:42:11 -0000 Subject: Badger, Eagle, Snake and the Lion In-Reply-To: <431FB5B5.2090902@snet.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139791 Gonca Izmirli wrote: > I think that the hiding places of the horcruxes will be related to the owners' houses. [snip] Also I think that HP will need the help of someone from those houses to get each horcrux. Amontillada: That's an intriguing idea! The last couple of books, at least, suggest that all four Houses will be important in some way to winning the conflict with Voldemort. In OotF, the Sorting Hat's song said: Oh, know the perils, read the signs, the warning history shows, for our Hogwarts is in danger from external, deadly foes and we must unite inside her or we'll crumble from within. (Ch. 11) I believe that in HBP, Hermione said something about seeing it as important for all four Houses to interact. (I'm not at home and don't have the book at hand to check, but I seem to recall that she said this in one of the chapters that took place earlier in the school year. If anyone can give more detail, I'd appreciate it. Gryffindor and Slytherin have been the houses at the center of the entire series, of course, but the last three books have paid more attention to and interaction among all four--Cho Chang and Luna Lovegood from Ravenclaw, Cedric Diggory from Hufflepuff, and the members of the various Houses in the DA in OotP. Gonca: > So I think that; lion, badger, eagle and snakelike qualities will come in handy in the last book. Amontillada: I hadn't thought of the respective Houses being important specifically in relation to the Horcruxes, but it's an intriguing idea. At any rate, I do see the four of them all playing significant parts in the final book. Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw aren't going to stay on the sidelines! Amontillada From k.coble at comcast.net Thu Sep 8 17:56:51 2005 From: k.coble at comcast.net (Katherine Coble) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 12:56:51 -0500 Subject: Bezoar!!!!!! In-Reply-To: <20050908053108.33706.qmail@web26104.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20050908053108.33706.qmail@web26104.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1ee2a943b598688edc96aacb649e05c8@comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 139792 Sorry I've been out of the posting game for so long, but I've been trying to spend a few months away from HP to just regain some perspective. In research for my work, I've been reading a book called "The Strange Case Of The Walking Corpse" by Nancy Butcher. It's a factual book that details strange diseases and folk remedies throughout the history of medicine. So there I sit happily reading along about men who have periods, women with 10 breasts and other such stuff when I get to this section(pages 54-55): THE MAGIC OF BEZOAR Bezoar is a sort of reddish stone, although 'stone' is a misnomer. Bezoar is in actuality a rock-hard hairball or gallstone from the stomach of an animal such as a goat or llama and sometimes, a human. Derived from two Persian words meaning "against" and "poison", bezaor was believed from medieval times on to be a powerful antidote to poisoning.... [lots more stuff about where you get bezoar and how you take it... then the truly interesting part] One strange legend attributes the powers of bezoar to Oriental stags. When the stags reached a certain age, they were said to eat serpents in order to regain their youth. But in consuming the serpents, the stags consumed their venom as well. To detoxify quickly, the stags ran into a stream while keeping their heads above water. This action somehow caused fluid to be distilled from their eyes, and the fluid was then transformed into a bezoar by the heat of the sun. ------ I don't know about any of you, but my Pottermania Antennae sprang to full alert when I read that. Stags...serpents...eyes....renewed youth....generation of a new healing stone through the magic of tears.... What do you think?! I personally think that we may see more of this legend in book 7. Katherine From dossett at lds.net Thu Sep 8 17:56:01 2005 From: dossett at lds.net (rtbthw_mom) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:56:01 -0000 Subject: the Horcrux Issue Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139793 My compliments to all who have (more ably than I) fleshed out their thoughts about the whole horcrux issue. I'd like to suggest a slightly different take on the whole subject, one that has elements of some thoughts that have come before (my apologies to all who let me borrow some of their ideas!) I'm in agreement with whomever it was that said that the soul pieces in the horcruxes would also retain memory. To me, this is why Diary! Tom has to ask Ginny for information about Harry: this information was unavailable at the time this horcrux was created - it hadn't happened yet! COS p. 311, Scholastic edition: "Well, you see, Ginny told me all about you, Harry," said Riddle. "Your whole *fascinating* history." His eyes roved over the lightning scar on Harry's forehead, and their expression grew hungrier. "I knew I must find out more about you, talk to you, meet you if I could." Diary!Tom didn't know about Harry because Harry wasn't born when this particular horcrux was made. However, Quirrell!Mort knew all about Harry because this was the last incident before LV became whatever it was he became: he was able to give Harry the details of how he killed James and Lilly (SS, p. 294, Scholastic edition.) And since this was Vapor!Mort, he knew all about Harry when he regained a body at the end of GOF. I'd like to suggest that each part of LV's soul contained in a horcrux exists sort of in limbo, if I could say it that way. It waits for an opportunity to be acted upon so it can become another LV if needed. I wonder if Diary!Tom doesn't show us that there is the possibility of 7 LV's running around at once - a truly terrible thought - if they had all been reactivated at the same time. I also think that because of the horcruxes, LV is unable to die because there are still pieces of him (the pieces of soul) that are tied to this life, therefore it is impossible for him to *completely* move on into the next life, or the great beyond, or whatever you'd like to call it. That's why somebody (DD, Harry) has to find and destroy all those little pieces of soul - when there are no more, then LV can be killed, nothing to tie him to this life anymore (I guess that's kind of a DUH! comment there!) What confuses me is why LV was hanging around in Albania when the horcruxes were in England? I guess he really doesn't need to be nearby a piece of his soul because they don't seem to "come back together" after they are activated: they simply continue on from where they were when they became horcruxes, having the evilness of LV still contained inside them. I had some other thoughts, too, but they seem to have left me for the moment :). . .I hope this isn't too simple, this is after all, children's literature! I'll let everyone start finding the holes in my theory - Pat from Virginia From gonca at snet.net Thu Sep 8 18:10:24 2005 From: gonca at snet.net (Gonca Izmirli) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 14:10:24 -0400 Subject: Eavesdropper in Hog's Head/someone in the Weasley-shed? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43207E90.2000208@snet.net> No: HPFGUIDX 139794 finwitch wrote: >and why >would he say the shed was *smelly and spidery* - which isn't very nice >thing to say - UNLESS he was giving a clue that he was er - 'treating >truth with great caution'? When I was reading the above quote, I remembered that Harry also thought of a "great swollen spider" after meeting Slughorn for the first time. Dumbledore explains HP the favorites system of Slughorn, then HP has "...a sudden mental image of a great swollen spider, spinning a web around it, twithcing a tread here and there...". May be Slughorn is the spider and he is the third person who knows the whole prophecy. But I cannot think how he possibly can. Maybe there is more to Slughorn... Also, I find it very interesting that, in HPB, Harry seems to see quite a few things in his "mind's eye" like the spider web above. It reminded me of what Snape said the first occlumency lesson about mind not being a book to be read but being a multilayered thing. In HBP, Harry's thoughts seem to be more visual. This led me to think that, maybe Dumbledore had an other purpose when he was showing scenes from LV's life to HP and not just telling him verbally. I don't know if I'm pushing this idea too far but; LV is a good legimens, if LV enters HP's mind and watches his own memories, I think it might weaken his defenses. So, maybe, DD was giving Harry a very powerful weapon by showing those memories besides giving him clues about the horcruxes. Gonca From vmonte at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 18:22:50 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 18:22:50 -0000 Subject: Depth? Things to take on their face value (Was: Sirius' loyalty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139795 Nora wrote: I can think of other things. Dumbledore's assertions about Harry: his heart saved him and not his mind, Harry has a fundamentally pure heart. Enough potential treacle to make us look for a hankie, but all also intended in utter sincerity. I'd offer the proposal that there are many things in the series which JKR as the author *intends* to be taken at their face value, and accepted by the reader. Correspondingly, this means that the subversive readings (which do not accept these things) are highly unlikely to receive any validation or confirmation in canon. Of course, nothing can stop the determined theorist. I'd love to hear what things y'all might put in this category. To pick back up... vmonte: I have another one: Regarding Draco Malfoy Dumbledore: " --the trouble is, humans do have a knack of choosing precisely those things that are worst for them." (297, SS) JKR: " having talked the talk [Draco is] asked to walk it for the first time and it is absolutely terrifying." http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet- anelli-2.htm http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/draco.html Draco wants to be a DE but when the time comes for him to "walk the walk" he realizes what he's gotten himself into. ________________________________________________________ Other thoughts on Draco, Zabini, and Snape Draco's intense hatred of Hermione has always made me very uncomfortable. I realize that part of the reason why he hates Hermione is because she is smart and talented and this goes against his ideology of what a "mudblood" should be. Also, is it possible to hate someone yet be unconsciously attracted to them at the same time? On Blaise Zabini- "A lot of boys like [Ginny Weasley]," said Pansy, watching Malfoy out of the corner of her eyes for his reaction. "Even you think she's good-looking, don't you, Blaise, and we all know how hard you are to please!" "I wouldn't touch a filthy little blood traitor like her whatever she looked like," said Zabini coldy, and Pansy looked pleased. Malfoy sank back across her lap and allowed her to resume the stroking of his hair. (p150, The Slug Club) This guy also makes me uncomfortable. (I know that this is a coincidence but Cedric, Harry's rival for Cho, helped Harry out during GoF, in one of the tasks. It would be cool if Dean Thomas were to kick Zabini's ass.) And what about Snape? How did he feel about Lily? Was his attraction to her also sick? Misogynistic? Pippin: In other words, for Harry to discover the good Slytherins, he may have to learn to think about Slytherin behavior in a different way. vmonte: I understand what you are saying, and I do think that Harry can/will see Slughorn as a good person, although with Slytherin-like characteristics. Anyway, chances are that when the fighting gets down and dirty there will be many Slytherin students that will fight for the right side. I'm sure that the majority of Slytherins are not psychopaths or terrorists. I'm not so sure about Snape though. Having Harry bend over backwards for a man that had a part in his family's death, and who continues to attack Lily and James via their son, just seems like immoral behavior to me. Saying that Harry needs to go out of his way to learn to think about Snape's behavior in a different way is like saying that Snape is not responsible for his own actions. And I think that is the wrong way to think. Vivian From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 18:36:03 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 18:36:03 -0000 Subject: Depth? Things to take on their face value In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139796 Pippin: > In other words, for Harry to discover the good Slytherins, he may > have to learn to think about Slytherin behavior in a different way. > > vmonte: > I'm not so sure about Snape though. Having Harry bend over backwards > for a man that had a part in his family's death, and who continues to > attack Lily and James via their son, just seems like immoral behavior > to me. Saying that Harry needs to go out of his way to learn to think > about Snape's behavior in a different way is like saying that Snape > is not responsible for his own actions. And I think that is the wrong > way to think. Alla: I think that Harry will not have to learn to think about Snape's behaviour in a different way. He may learn more about his past ( whether it is connection with Lily, or Narcissa or something else). which could have influenced Snape's choices along the way. But Snape made many choices, which I believe are meant to be taken at face value,just as many things that Nora quoted upthread. I again speculate that Harry will show mercy to Snape, but this mercy would have very little to do with the merits of Snape behaviour, but more with Harry's spiritual growth, if you may. Harry will probably learn something that would make him pity Snape again and thus he would save Snape or something. THEN if Snape's redemption is to happen, which I am not sure, but it is of course a possibility, Snape may return the favor. Of course I am just speculating here, Alla From manawydan at ntlworld.com Thu Sep 8 18:32:30 2005 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 19:32:30 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] STWNSHH (was Size) References: <1126203068.2126.77822.m33@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <003d01c5b4a3$ad66edc0$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 139797 ibchawz wrote: > I enjoyed reading your theory on this subject. It reminded me of the > email that gets forwarded around every Christmas that technically > describes why Santa Claus can't exist. He really doesn't exist too mind! > I don't have my GOF book with me, so I am quoting the following stuff > from memory. Before the match began, the scoreboard was flashing > advertisements for various products (I think Magical Mess Remover was > one of them), so there is some sort of corporate sponsorship. There's advertising, but that's not the same thing. If there was corporate sponsorship, you'd expect to see teams renamed to include the sponsors' names (Holyhead would become (perhaps) Mrs Skower's Harpies!), executive boxes, that sort of thing. The descriptions we get sound like there aren't any significant outside injections of cash on that sort of scale. > Another thing I recall (let me know if my memory is faulty) is that > the stadium for the Quidditch World Cup was built to seat 100,000 > people. Considering that overseas countries were represented by > rather small groups of fans due to the logistics of travel, I think > it is safe to assume that the majority of the attendees were from > Europe (for the sake of discussion, I assume 70%). If the UK has > only a WW population of 3000, that leaves 67,000 to come from other > European countries. If this is the case, the UK actually has a > relatively small population of wizards/witches in comparison to other > European countries. Would be 97,000 rather than 67,000 but I note your point. Think about the logistics of accommodating around 30 times your national population, even for a short time, the amount of resources, food, etc that would be needed. It just wouldn't be feasible. The Rugby World Cup final was in Wales in 1999. But we didn't get 90 million fans coming to it! > Since JKR has stated that math and numbers (including school and WW > populations) are not her strong point, I don't think she really gave > this aspect of the WW a lot of forethought. On the other had, she > stated that she had background details for each of the students in > Harry's year at Hogwarts. I guess she just put more energy into > character development than she did into other details. And that's the real point. Those of us who enjoy speculating about the sociology, economics, and other behind the scenes angles of the WW can see just what a rich field of possibility there is. I'm quite happy to let JKR get on with the story telling and leave the rest to fandom. As someone said earlier, she's not Tolkien (though I'd love to see her backstory notes!) hwyl Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Sep 8 18:38:13 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 18:38:13 -0000 Subject: Depth? Things to take on their face value (Was: Sirius' loyalty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139798 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > Then we have the biggie, the one which is harder to accept: > Dumbledore trusts Snape and since Dumbledore is so clever he > sometimes makes comparatively 'huger' mistakes than the rest. Hmmmm. > Still can't accept that one quite yet. Not because it would make > Dumbledore a fool, since choosing to love and trust over feeling > hate and suspicion are 'generally preferable' as DD (JKR) would say. > But it would negate Dumbledore's life work, in a sense. He trusted > someone he shouldn't have, allowed him into Hogwarts & the Order, > and it led to death and destruction of many of the things he holds > dear. And the chain is just beginning, the ramifications of > Dumbledore's huge mistake would mount in Book 7 if Snape truly is > working at Voldemort's side. If this one is true, the real > redemption will be Harry righting Dumbledore's wrong. > Pippin: I think we are to take Dumbledore's statements about life, the universe and everything at face value. It is our choices, it doesn't do to dwell on dreams and forget to live, killing is much more difficult than the innocent believe, and so on. I think it will make things very complicated in the end to have Dumbledore be wrong about Snape. There will have to be a lot of shoring up not to undermine the idea that people are worth a second chance at trust. Is there any indication that this teaching, among all the fatherly guff that Dumbledore hands out, is misguided? Well, Moody thinks it is, but his paranoia is not presented as something to admire. There's Peter of course, but even if Pettigrew redeems himself, he still won't be someone who repented and was *trusted* again. Nor would there be time, in the year of story that we have left, for Pettigrew to prove that his remorse had "stuck" so to speak. Pippin From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 18:54:46 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 11:54:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's upcoming letter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050908185446.62540.qmail@web53111.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139799 Kizor: ...edited... "Dear Harry, If you are reading this, I am dead. You didn't think that as Voldemort's other mortal enemy I wouldn't plan for this eventuality, now did you? Now then - you're a smart and brave young man, but up against the most powerful wizard of your time. You can't hope to triumph as you stand now. Should you end up not being able to return to Hogwarts, here's how to destroy a Horcrux, a variety of my best tricks and inventions, the locations of a cache or two of powerful anti-Dark items, what happened to my hand and everything I know about Lord Voldemort. Happy hunting, try not to get killed too much. PS. I was quite serious about the socks. Albus Dumbledore" Juli now: I hope you are right, Dumbledore must have had a contingency plan. He must have known that he was on top of Voldies "to do" list. I wonder what he has in store for Harry, maybe a Handbook hidden in 12GP? A bunch of memories in jars? I'm thinking that maybe Dumbledore kept a journal, it must be an incredibly interesting one, imagine all of his knowledge packed in a book (or two). Boy, I wish *I* could get my hands on it. The question is, where would he hide it? Hogwarts is the only option (isn't it safer than even Gringotts?) or the OoP's headquarters perhaps? Juli Aol: jlnbtr Yahoo: jlnbtr __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 19:02:23 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 12:02:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Horcrux Issue Message-ID: <20050908190223.97424.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139800 Pat wrote: ...edited... What confuses me is why LV was hanging around in Albania when the horcruxes were in England? I guess he really doesn't need to be nearby a piece of his soul because they don't seem to "come back together" after they are activated: they simply continue on from where they were when they became horcruxes, having the evilness of LV still contained inside them. Juli now: I believe there are a few reasons Voldemort stood all those years as vapor!mort in Albania: 1)The Aurors were still looking for him in England. 2)He was sure it was only for a short time, one of his DE would come looking for him at any moment, so he had to stay in one place if he wanted to be found. 3)He couldn't get a body by himself cause he couldn't even hold a wand, and without a wand, there isn't much magic to do. Besides he said he had lost all this powers except the ability to posess others. 4)so he has depending 100% on his DEs, he was "sure" any of them would come and get him, perform a spell to give him a body and voila, Voldie's back in town. Juli Aol: jlnbtr Yahoo: jlnbtr --------------------------------- Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 19:06:30 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 19:06:30 -0000 Subject: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort (was: Re: Draco's culpability...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139801 > Betsy Hp: > Working Vanishing Cabinets *kill* people? You'll have to explain > this to me. I do realize it's the first domino leading to the > events on the Tower, but it's not, in and of itself, a lethal > activity. Like say, constructing a bomb or a deadly poison would be. > Yeah, there is nothing lethal in carving a big wooden horse, too. On the contrary it bespeaks of an artistic disposition and courteous manners. Just ask the Trojans. a_svirn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 19:06:30 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 19:06:30 -0000 Subject: What mistakes Dumbledore made? Re: Loyalty & Trust In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139802 > maddmorgan: > Oh, I'm not arguing that Harry has no reason to dislike and distrust > Snape...He certainly does. But Dumbledore's admission that he can > make mistakes doesn't necessarily mean his trust in Snape is one. A little patience here...I'm not as deep a reader as some of you seem to be...but what mistakes of Dumbledore's have we actually seen? > Leaving Harry with the horrible Dursleys? Not telling Harry the whole ugly truth right from the beginning? The alternatives to those decisions might have been more damaging to the child, if not fatal. That he brought Riddle to Hogwarts in the first place? ...What mistakes has Dumbledore made? Alla: Well, Dumbledore admits that not telling Harry the truth about prophecy had been a mistake at the end of OOP, so I am taking him at his word here :-) Dursleys - don't want to go into Dursleys debate again, but yes, to me it was a mistake, but at least in HBP I was satisfied with the level of contempt Dumbledore showed them, IMO, so I finally bought that Dumbledore only did it to keep Harry alive. I am convinced that Dumbledore does not have much understanding of psychological issues. As he admits at the end of OOP, he forgot what does it mean to be young , how youth feels and that hurt both Harry and Sirius ( parahrasing here) So, to me it is very possible that he could not see from Snape POV, so to speak and did not figure out Snape's real feelings and that his trust may have been misplaced. Besides, we have quite a few examples of Dumbledore trusting the wrong people to fulfill DADA position. JMO of course, Alla From vmonte at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 19:15:05 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 19:15:05 -0000 Subject: Depth? Things to take on their face value (Was: Sirius' loyalty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139803 Jen wrote: Then we have the biggie, the one which is harder to accept: Dumbledore trusts Snape and since Dumbledore is so clever he sometimes makes comparatively 'huger' mistakes than the rest. Hmmmm. Still can't accept that one quite yet. Not because it would make Dumbledore a fool, since choosing to love and trust over feeling hate and suspicion are 'generally preferable' as DD (JKR) would say. But it would negate Dumbledore's life work, in a sense. He trusted someone he shouldn't have, allowed him into Hogwarts & the Order, and it led to death and destruction of many of the things he holds dear. And the chain is just beginning, the ramifications of Dumbledore's huge mistake would mount in Book 7 if Snape truly is working at Voldemort's side. If this one is true, the real redemption will be Harry righting Dumbledore's wrong. vmonte: Isn't real life like this though? There is alway s someone else ready to come up through the ranks and take the place of the last bad guy. Snape even talks about the Dark Arts as a many headed monster. Each time a neck is severed, a new head sprouts even fiecer and cleverer than before. Evil never ends. So, even if Snape dies in the end do you honestly believe that there won't be someone waiting in the wings to take his place? Imagine a scenario (I'm not saying this is going to happen) where Draco is saved by Ron or Harry from Fenrir (I just picked Fenrir off the top of my head because this is would be Karmic justice for Draco for letting this guy into the school. Besides, Draco is afraid of werewolves: `The Forest?' he [Malfoy] repeated, and he didn't sound quite as cool as usual. `We can'y go in there at night-there's all sorts of things in there?werewolves, I heard.' (PS15)) Anyway, Draco then decides to switch sides (because it's in his best interest anyway) and helps to bring down...Snape? In the end Draco is not sent to Azkaban because he switched sides and helped the ministry. I mean it isn't like he was responsible for Dumbledore's death right? It's not like he pulled the trigger or anything like that--he just led the bad people to him, right? (I'm being sarcastic.) Poor misunderstood Draco will go scott free. Of course he will not appreciate the person that saved him. And he will also hate their children, forever. Vivian From Sherry at PebTech.net Thu Sep 8 18:46:01 2005 From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 18:46:01 -0000 Subject: OFH!Snape scenario (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139804 Saraquel's replies to Houyhnmhnm, Marianne and Valky made me mull some things over: houhnmhnm: > >Snape [is] still carrying an enormous chip around on his shoulder > > over the fact that the rule-breaking, DD's trust-betraying > > Marauders were the fair-haired sons, while School Boy Severus... > > is treated like the bastard step child. His biggest gripe about > > Harry is the way Harry is allowed to get away with rule breaking. Saraquel: > I think that is what really p****s him off re the Marauders ? he > follows the rules (if we are to believe his lack of punishment > record), but doesn't get any attention for that from anyone, it > doesn't bring him the respect that he thinks he deserves. Now Amontillada: Very good point, both of you! I'd never quite been able to make that parallel between Snape's resentment of the Marauders and his attitude toward Harry, but it makes a lot of sense. It doesn't negate any of the other theories about Snape's allegiance and his attitude toward Harry, but it helps to explain how he ALSO emotianally reacts to Harry. Saraquel: > Apparently, a long time ago someone asked her whether there was a > redemptive theme where Snape was concerned, she said she was > stunned and told them to read book 7. Amontillada: This MAY be the one you're thinking about, from a radio interview in October, 1999 (http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/1999/1099-connectiontransc.html): --Interviewer: There's an important kind of redemptive pattern to Snape --JKR: He, um, there's so much I wish I could say to you, and I can't because it would ruin. I promise you, whoever asked that question, can I just say to you that I'm slightly stunned that you've said that and you'll find out why I'm so stunned if you read Book 7. That's all I'm going to say. Saraquel: > > > Through Harry's action of saving Snape, Snape will realise the > > > power of love that DD was talking about, but Snape never saw > > > for himself. When he sees it, he will realise why Harry is > > > special. Marianne: > > ...I have a hard time seeing him have this sort of epiphany. Saraquel: > Actually, I don't have a hard time seeing Snape going through an > epiphany. If he was confronted by the Power of Truth and > Knowledge, he would accept it. ... > I think it could well come as as much a surprise for Harry as for > Snape and it will be overwhelming for both of them. It would then > be clear to Snape, that he wasn't saved by Harry, but by the > blinding light of Truth/Love. I really do think that JKR wants to > make a big bang about love in these books, as I think you know :-) Amontillada: I agree about the "big bang" JKR wants to make about love--not only, as I'm sure we agree, romantic love, but love for all others. At the end of HBP, Harry's fury toward Snape was so strong that it was really shoving love aside. I'm convinced that one of the central threads of Book 7 will be his--not well phrased, I know--remembering and reopening himself to the capacity of love. Adding my penny's worth to a fine discussion, Amontillada From ragingjess at hotmail.com Thu Sep 8 19:28:22 2005 From: ragingjess at hotmail.com (Jessica Bathurst) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 15:28:22 -0400 Subject: Dumbledore's upcoming letter (and a note about "lawn order") In-Reply-To: <20050908185446.62540.qmail@web53111.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139805 Juli: > I'm thinking that maybe Dumbledore kept a journal, it must be an > incredibly interesting one, imagine all of his knowledge packed in > a book (or two). Boy, I wish *I* could get my hands on it. The > question is, where would he hide it? Hogwarts is the only option > (isn't it safer than even Gringotts?) or the OoP's headquarters > perhaps? Perhaps he left something with Aberforth? Would anyone (Harry included) even think of looking for it in the Hog's Head? I agree with both you and Kizor on this one - there's got to be some way of getting a whole bunch of information from Dumbledore to Harry in Book 7. Perhaps there's something in Dumbledore's last letter to Petunia? houyhnhnm: >Snape has an almost prissy regard for lawn order. I just got the most fabulous mental picture of the four Heads of House drinking beer in the alley next to Hogwarts. "Yep." "Uh huh." "Yup." Does this make Professor Sprout Boomhauer? Yours, Jessica From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 19:45:24 2005 From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 19:45:24 -0000 Subject: Horcrux predictions (Was: JKR's Ambiguities) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139806 Amiable Dorsai: > > But you know, the sword *isn't* the only known relic of Godric > > Gryffindor--there's also the Sorting Hat. I'd like to bring together two separate lines of thinking about one of the horcruxes. First, there's been much discussion about which relic of Godric Gryffindor is a horcrux - the Sorting Hat or the sword. Second, lots of debate over whether Harry could be a horcrux, or whether his scar is a horcrux. Let's combine those two theories: Perhaps LV placed a horcrux in Harry because Harry *is* the relic of Godric Gryffindor. We know that he and both of his parents are in Gryffindor House. We know that his parents lived in Godric's Hollow, which I believe JKR connected with Godric Gryffindor in one of her interviews (just my memory, I don't have a source to attribute). JKR also said on her website, in her discussion of the terms half-blood and pure-blood, that "Harry would be considered only 'half' wizard, because of his mother's grandparents." The conclusion I draw from that comment is that James and his family were pure-bloods. I don't have my copy of HBP at hand, but I think there was confirmation of that. Perhaps the Potters are descended directly from Godric Gryffindor? This thought had been floating around in my head for awhile, and was reinforced by a quotation that rtbthw_mom pulled from COS, p.311 in an earlier message today: "Well, you see, Ginny told me all about you, Harry," said Riddle. "Your whole *fascinating* history." His eyes roved over the lightning scar on Harry's forehead, and their expression grew hungrier. "I knew I must find out more about you, talk to you, meet you if I could." ? hpfan_mom, apologizing if this theory has already been advanced and discarded From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 21:27:57 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 21:27:57 -0000 Subject: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort (was: Re: Draco's culpability...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139807 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > This is two chances for JKR to make absolutely clear that Draco > > bares the Dark Mark: he sets off the Mark in the sky; he makes > > it past the barrier, either going up or coming down. But JKR > > chooses to give Draco a pass both times. I'm becoming more and > > more confident that Draco is not a Death Eater at the conclusion > > of HBP. > >>Jen: > JKR is sneaky that way and personally these omissions are very > persuasive. But what about Draco's left arm? Why was he favoring > it and showing it to Borgin? When Harry notices these things about > Draco he's not thinking Draco is in cahoots with Voldemort & the > DE's, so can't be POV. Betsy Hp: Harry just supposes that Draco shows Borgin his arm. He doesn't actually *see* Draco do it. However, I agree that Draco is exhibiting suspicious behavior, in both cases, that cannot be explained away by POV. > >>Jen: > Of the two theories so far, a dark mark and a werewolf bite, the > dark mark seems most likely. So what's behind door #3? The only > thing I can think of is Draco somehow tried to make his own dark > mark on his arm to 'persuade' Borgin, but it wasn't actually a > link to LV like the DE's have. But that may be cheesy . Betsy Hp: I totally discount the werewolf bite, myself. And since I'm starting to really doubt that Draco does have a Dark Mark, I'll have to go with door #3. There's two possibilities, I think. One is the "Draco faked the Mark" thing. (I read a theory that he used one of the twins' edible Dark Marks.) Or, it's a total red herring. Maybe he really *was* poked by a pin. Though it does leave unanswered what he used to scare Borgin with. JKR is definitely leaving the question up in the air though. And since Draco *not* being marked would surprise Harry more, I tend to lean in that direction. > >>Jen: > "Draco's Detour" to me means just that, a slide into Voldemort's > camp for a time and then a slide back out. That's simplified for > sure, but sometimes JKR's simplest clues have the most meaning. Betsy Hp: I agree that JKR could well have meant her chapter title. And Draco certainly began HBP firmly in Voldemort's camp. But it's easier for Draco to slide back out of Voldemort's camp if he's not branded. That way he's only detoured, not horribly lost. > >>Jen: > Not that I think Draco will live, mind you. Hate to say it but I'm > not certain even Snape can save him and in fact, could see the > possiblity of Snape being ordered to kill Draco for his failure of > will. Whew! How's that for adding fuel to the already smoking > Snape fire? Betsy Hp: I feel like Draco's chances of survival have gone up, myself. But I'd been worried that Draco would end up dying in order to see the error of his ways. Fortunately, JKR was merciful, and it looks like Draco saw the light without having to die for it. His life is in Snape's hands now, but since I think Snape is ESG, I trust Snape with the burden. *Snape's* life expectency however.... *sigh* I'm worried. > >>Betsy Hp: > Working Vanishing Cabinets *kill* people? You'll have to explain > this to me. I do realize it's the first domino leading to the > events on the Tower, but it's not, in and of itself, a lethal > activity. Like say, constructing a bomb or a deadly poison would > be. > >>a_svirn: > Yeah, there is nothing lethal in carving a big wooden horse, too. > On the contrary it bespeaks of an artistic disposition and > courteous manners. Just ask the Trojans. Betsy Hp: I absolutely agree that Draco's actions in fixing the Vanishing Cabinet led to the death of Dumbledore and Bill's injuries. I'm not trying to let him off the hook on that. What was interesting to me, though, was that Draco chose to throw himself into such a non-martial exercise. It backs up, IMO, Dumbledore's assertion that Draco is not a killer. Tom Riddle, for example, would probably have worked on a lethal potion or magical bomb and a delivery method. When Draco *does* attempt to "deal death" as it were, his methods are *so* unsophisticated (especially compared to the Cabinet plan) as to suggest his heart really isn't in it. Betsy Hp From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 22:49:02 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 22:49:02 -0000 Subject: Depth? Things to take on their face value (Was: Sirius' loyalty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139808 > >>Betsy Hp: > > As I'm basing my exegesis on JKR's presentation of the > > character, I'll just say, she's deep that one, and stick to my > > guns. > >>Nora: > So, here's a tangent for you. > Let me repeat the comments: "I think the question really is do > you, as readers, believe that Sirius would have died? Because > Sirius is saying that...Right, well, that's what I believed." > In other words, JKR is saying that Sirius is utterly sincere in > this situation, and his declaration is pretty much to be taken at > face value. > This seems to me to be, to the chagrin of some, a tendency that's > increasing in strength through the series. > > I'd offer the proposal that there are many things in the series > which JKR as the author *intends* to be taken at their face value, > and accepted by the reader. Correspondingly, this means that the > subversive readings (which do not accept these things) are highly > unlikely to receive any validation or confirmation in canon. Of > course, nothing can stop the determined theorist. > I'd love to hear what things y'all might put in this category. Betsy Hp: But you're combining two different things, I think: taking JKR at face value and taking Sirius's statements at face value. And frankly, you cannot do both. Because JKR has given us *examples* of Sirius saying one thing, and I believe meaning it quite sincerely when he says it, but then turning around and doing something completely different. There's nothing subversive about the contradiction inherent in Sirius's comments on the treatment of Winky and then his treatment of Kreacher. It's right there in black and white. (I believe JKR even speaks about it in an interview somewhere.) Sirius's letter to Harry at the beginning of OotP (don't do anything foolish) and his fire call conversation later on (do something foolish) is another good example of his contradictive nature. Sirius says he'd have died for Peter. I believe he meant it at the time he said it. But I also think Sirius rated James as more worthy of loyalty than Peter. If it had come down to a choice, I think Sirius would leave Peter to save James. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Asking anyone to keep a secret is putting them into *some* level > > of duress. > > > >>Nora: > I see you've cut out the whole issue of Order Member in addition > to personal friend, but I still think it's relevant on some > level. :) Betsy Hp: How? And more specifically, how is it relevant to Peter being asked to get into a situation where it's *his* life on the line. > >>Nora: > Or, let's throw out more hypothetics. If Peter had refused, would > he have been pressed hard--assuming that Lily is in on this too? > Betsy Hp: This is where we go back to what we know of their characters (taking JKR at face value ). Peter would not be expected to refuse. He's not in a position within the friendship, IMO, to refuse James or Sirius anything. Even Lily, as James's wife, is someone Peter would not be expected to say no to. Especially as he's being asked to safe-guard James's life (the most noble job ever, per Sirius, I would imagine). Though this is a mere exercise, IMO, because at this point Peter has already turned, I believe. Unless there was another spy out there sowing the seeds of distrust amongst the Order members (and the Marauders' specifically) who has yet to be revealed. So Peter had another reason for not refusing the job. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > Within a fictional world, where character exposure is limited, > > it's unwise for the author to have her characters act wildly out > > of character the first time she introduces them to her readers. > >>Nora: > Wildly out of character is not the same thing as presenting > characters acting differently. Betsy Hp: But that's my point. You cannot (or should not) have your characters acting out of character (or "differently") when they're first introduced to the reader. Otherwise it's a cheat. I think the interaction of the Marauders within in the flashback should be taken at... well, at face value. > >>Nora: > > Also, given the method of presentation of the material--flashback-- > it's really quite easy to introduce a contrasting situation, and > then leave it to the reader to try to reconcile both. I don't > consider that violating the grounds of character establishment. Betsy Hp: Hmmm, I really disagree. I think it *does* violate the character establishment. It can be done, but the author needs to drop in some pretty big clues that "things are not as they seem". And pre-Snape spotting, the boys seem to be well in character, very comfortable in their skin and their pecking order. > >>Nora: > -Nora notes that you can do all sorts of things when you're > working on a revelation model of storytelling...shocking sorts of > things Betsy Hp: Ooh, I *really* disagree with this one. In the revelation model I think you have to be *incredibly* careful about playing games with your readers. More so than in other genres, actually. Because the shocks *must* be based on foundations you've already put into play. Otherwise, you're cheating. If JKR suddenly reveals that Neville is Voldemort's minion I think fans round the world would cry out in protest, because it goes completely against Neville's character. However, revealing that Neville was nearly the "Chosen One" is okay, because as early as PS/SS Neville showed some hidden depths. Betsy Hp From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Sep 8 23:15:58 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:15:58 -0000 Subject: What mistakes Dumbledore made? Re: Loyalty & Trust In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139809 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Besides, we have quite a few examples of Dumbledore trusting the > wrong people to fulfill DADA position. > Pippin: Oh, it doesn't look so bad now. We know that the position is jinxed, apparently to bring out the worst in whoever holds it. How many of us would still have our positions in a year under conditions like that? We also know that Dumbledore let Draco go about his business even though he knew he was helping Voldemort, which sheds some light on how DD could know about Quirrell and not interfere. Lockhart, I believe, was *intended* to be a victim of the curse. Lupin was allowed his second chance -- it's his *third* chance, letting him rejoin the Order after he'd twice failed his trust, that bothers me. Umbridge was never trusted. That leaves Fake!Moody, who managed to hide his crimes. But the second time he endangered a student, Dumbledore did not need more proof. Snape has many times made Harry unhappy. He has threatened to do worse. But when has Snape *ever* between the time he returned to Hogwarts and the events on the tower, endangered Harry or any other child? We can't fault him for the failure of the occlumency lessons any more, not if we're taking things at face value, right? And at face value, a shove that knocks a boy to the ground and a jarfull of cockroaches that misses is just a shove and a miss, not an attempt at murder. It seems to me that "face value" theorists have to extrapolate just as much as the rest of us to come up with a consistent position. :-) Pippin From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Thu Sep 8 23:17:34 2005 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:17:34 -0000 Subject: STWNSHH (was Size) In-Reply-To: <004601c5b0b7$2d7d0940$704b6d51@f3b7j4> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139810 --- My summary of JKR's interview responses concerning the size of the British wizarding population: >> As I read it, [JKR] is confirming that she envisioned >> exactly 40 students in Harry's year, although she concedes >> that this does not really square with her idea about the >> total number of students at Hogwarts (larger, aroung 600) >> or about the size of the total British wizarding population >> (which she apparently is estimating as approximately 3,000 >> school-age children, but as she says "don't hold me to these >> figures, because that's not how I think"). --- Ffred critiqued the British wizarding population estimate on the ground that a total British wizarding population of 3,000 would allow only 123 fans for each of the 13 professional Quidditch clubs. I think Rowling's point in the interview is that it is hopeless to try to find consistency among the population estimates that she has made (even, as she points out, within the Hogwarts population itself), because she simply did not try to make all of those numbers square when she was imagining what the WW looked like. I don't really mean to venture down that road, but.... If we *are* going to critique (or extrapolate from) her numbers, we should at least make sure that we use the numbers she actually gave. Ffred's analysis assumes a total British wizarding population of 3,000. JKR's interview postulated that the total number of *school-age* British wizards was around 3,000. Of course the number of adults would be larger -- I think that secondary-school-age kids make up about 10% of the population in the muggle developed world, but since wizards have a much longer life expectancy, the WW ratio would need to be smaller, say 5%. So a school-age population of 3,000 might imply a total population of around 60,000. Ffred's analysis is also flawed in assuming that the British teams are supported exclusively by British witches and wizards, something that may well be untrue. Although we know that the World Cup teams inspired national loyalties, it appears from the few student discussions we've seen around Quidditch (Ron, Cho, etc.) that their support is less tied to regional loyalty. Because distance presents much less of a barrier to travel in the WW than in the muggle world (owing to apparition, floo powder, portkeys, and possibly other magical travel methods we don't know about), it does not seem difficult to imagine that fans outside Britain might support one or more British Quidditch sides, particularly if Britain has a concentration of talented squads. So, while JKR's numbers do have some genuine internal inconsistencies, I'm not sure that the "Quidditch analysis" takes us much further down the road of exploring them. -- Matt From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 23:25:19 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:25:19 -0000 Subject: Depth? Things to take on their face value (Was: Sirius' loyalty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139811 > Jen: > > Then we have the biggie, the one which is harder to accept: > > Dumbledore trusts Snape and since Dumbledore is so clever he > > sometimes makes comparatively 'huger' mistakes than the rest. > Hmmmm. > > Still can't accept that one quite yet. Not because it would make > > Dumbledore a fool, since choosing to love and trust over feeling > > hate and suspicion are 'generally preferable' as DD (JKR) would > say. > > But it would negate Dumbledore's life work, in a sense. He trusted > > someone he shouldn't have, allowed him into Hogwarts & the Order, > > and it led to death and destruction of many of the things he holds > > dear. And the chain is just beginning, the ramifications of > > Dumbledore's huge mistake would mount in Book 7 if Snape truly is > > working at Voldemort's side. If this one is true, the real > > redemption will be Harry righting Dumbledore's wrong. > > > > Pippin: > I think we are to take Dumbledore's statements about life, > the universe and everything at face value. It is our choices, > it doesn't do to dwell on dreams and forget to live, killing is > much more difficult than the innocent believe, and so on. > > I think it will make things very complicated in the end to have > Dumbledore be wrong about Snape. There will have to > be a lot of shoring up not to undermine the idea that people > are worth a second chance at trust. Is there any indication that > this teaching, among all the fatherly guff that Dumbledore hands > out, is misguided? Well, Moody thinks it is, but his paranoia > is not presented as something to admire. > Neri: I predict that two characters who are going to justify their second chances will be Draco and possibly Kreacher. Also, even if Snape betrayed Dumbledore's trust and killed him, it might still be possible for Dumbledore to turn out right about Snape in the end. For example in the Life Debt theory: Dumbledore trusted Snape because Snape has a life debt to Harry. Dumbledore's giant mistake was that he didn't realize Snape can betray him, since Snape's debt is to Harry, not to Dumbledore. But Dumbledore's mistake only brought his own death, while Snape still has to pay his debt to Harry, and thus Dumbledore will still turn out right in the end. So we can have: (1) Snape is a bad man (face value), and (2) he indeed killed Dumbledore (face value) and (3) he hates Harry because he owes his life to James (face value), which is why (4) in the end he'll save the day so his second chance will be justified (face value) and (5) Dumbledore will turn out right to trust him (face value), even though (6) Dumbledore can make huge mistakes (face value). And if you still want a bit of conspiracy and puppet-master!DD, perhapshe had always known that Snape might betray him, and he was ready to make this personal sacrifice in order to put Snape in Voldemort's favor, the best position for him to help Harry. Neri From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 23:49:09 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:49:09 -0000 Subject: Depth? Things to take on their face value (Was: Sirius' loyalty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139812 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > But you're combining two different things, I think: taking JKR at > face value and taking Sirius's statements at face value. And > frankly, you cannot do both. But JKR's statement is that she *means* Sirius' statement, the one specifically discussed here, at face value. You absolutely cannot get around that plain fact, much like the Ginny case. I wasn't referring to the other ones at all. You pulled them in first. > Betsy Hp: > How? And more specifically, how is it relevant to Peter being > asked to get into a situation where it's *his* life on the line. Because it means that it's not just "Peter, do this for James your old buddy," it's "Peter, this involves a group of people important to the cause and the organization you have pledged yourself to". Question of institutional/group loyalty as well as personal. Just like we wonder if characters are ideologically committed, or are simply loyal to one or more person(s). >>Nora: >> -Nora notes that you can do all sorts of things when you're >> working on a revelation model of storytelling...shocking sorts of >> things > > Betsy Hp: > Ooh, I *really* disagree with this one. In the revelation model I > think you have to be *incredibly* careful about playing games with > your readers. More so than in other genres, actually. Because the > shocks *must* be based on foundations you've already put into > play. Otherwise, you're cheating. If JKR suddenly reveals that > Neville is Voldemort's minion I think fans round the world would > cry out in protest, because it goes completely against Neville's > character. However, revealing that Neville was nearly the "Chosen > One" is okay, because as early as PS/SS Neville showed some hidden > depths. Different kind of revelation, because the method of exposure for the characters has been so different. Let's put it this way. We 'know' characters such as Draco and Harry and Neville in a particular manner, because we've watched them for a good six years of their lives. Thus we've seen them mature and develop, and we can draw lots of patterns of character, typical actions, etc. We've experienced them in the present tense. We don't 'know' any of the adults in the same manner at all. We get their actions, but think about how we think about them here--we're most interested in motivation, but we're also most interested in their PAST actions. This is what I mean by the 'revelation' model. We get information about Snape from flashbacks to the past. We hear accounts and hearsay of the Marauders, and we see one instant in time. Then we the readers try to assemble these things into patterns, and make them as consistent as we can. When we're playing that game, the author can drop in any number of things that we then have to MAKE fit the pattern (because we're good readers in Iser's model). For instance, there are any number of reasons which potentially fit for Snape's conversion and current motivations. You may not like the OFH!Snape or ESE!Snape explanation, but they can certainly be made to fit in mechanical terms--as can ESG!Snape. When you take characters who you give a fairly small amount of screen time, you can really shock readers with the revelation model, and still make it work. What if, for instance, we get a memory scene of the Marauders acting very differently? That's not necessarily Out of Character, it's just up to the readers to adjust our mental images. -Nora brings up the wonderful world of 'seriation' yet again From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Sep 8 23:51:57 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:51:57 -0000 Subject: Depth? Things to take on their face value (Was: Sirius' loyalty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139813 Jen: > But it would negate Dumbledore's life work, in a sense. He trusted > someone he shouldn't have, allowed him into Hogwarts & the Order, > and it led to death and destruction of many of the things he holds > dear. houyhnhnm: I don't have to wait two years for book 7. I already know what the Daily Prophet is going to say. Dumbledore was a great wizard once, but he was in his dotage (an "obsolete dingbat" if Rita Skeeter writes the article). He always did have eccentric ideas. He let werewolves attend Hogwarts. He even hired them as teachers, along with half-giants and ex-Death Eaters, and look where it got him. Maybe it's time to return to traditional values. I take Dumbledore's confession of his "mistakes" as just another expression of his whimsical, self-deprecating style, a facade behind which exists a supremely powerful and self-confident wizard. Like maddmorgan in another thread(Message 139779), I question whether Dumbledore really has made mistakes. He has had some hard choices to make and things haven't always turned out as he would have wished, but is that the same thing as making mistakes? Yes, Harry had a miserable 9 3/4 years with the Dursleys, but has it damaged him beyond repair? Dumbledore doesn't seem to think so. Would Harry really have been better off as the pampered little prince in a wizarding foster family? Or in danger from the Lestranges or other DEs after his parents were killed or from Voldemort himself every summer after his regeneration? If Sirius had been allowed his freedom, might he not have died all the sooner, and in a way that compromised the Order? The reason that it is courageous to make choices rather than to wait passively to be overtaken by fate is that one doesn't have control over the outcome. Dumbledore frequently had to choose between two problematic options and, it seems to me, for the most he chose wisely. From sherriola at earthlink.net Fri Sep 9 00:51:41 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 17:51:41 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What mistakes Dumbledore made? Re: Loyalty & Trust In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <008601c5b4d8$af19b3c0$423a79a5@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 139815 Pippin: > Snape has many times made Harry unhappy. He has threatened to > do worse. But when has Snape *ever* between the time he returned > to Hogwarts and the events on the tower, endangered Harry or > any other child? We can't fault him for the failure of the occlumency > lessons any more, not if we're taking things at face value, right? Alla: Sure we can, Pippin. :-) Remember Harry feeling worse after the lessons? Harry may be damaged to learn Occlumency, but I am doubting that Occlumency per se made him hurt that much. JMO of course. Sherry adds: And here we have one of Dumbledore's biggest mistakes, except for trusting Snape of course, the fact that he didn't sit Harry down and explain the need for occlumency. Now we know that Harry wouldn't have been good at it anyway, but neither we nor Harry knew that in OOTP. If Dumbledore had really explained it, no, not Snape, but Dumbledore, instead of being too afraid to look at Harry that year, Harry might have tried harder. Maybe not, considering the teacher, but he might have tried. At least he would have known why he should have. Perhaps, Voldemort might not have been able to trick him into trying to rescue Sirius, and Sirius might not have died. That is not to say I blame Dumbledore for that, because I lay the blame squarely on Bella and Voldemort. and Harry, being Harry, would probably have had to go and be sure Sirius was ok. But still ... things could have been different. Pippin: > And at face value, a shove that knocks a boy to the ground and > a jarfull of cockroaches that misses is just a shove and a miss, not > an attempt at murder. Alla: Sure it is not attempt at murder, but this is an attempt to physically hurt a student, just as a throwing curse at Harry at the end of HBP. Sherry now: And even if we didn't have the ending of HBP, no provocation should cause a teacher to shove a student and throw a jar at him! Even though Harry was wrong to look in the pensive, Snape was wrong to physically react as he did. Sherry From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 01:04:46 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 01:04:46 -0000 Subject: What mistakes Dumbledore made? Re: Loyalty & Trust In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139816 > Alla wrote: > > > Besides, we have quite a few examples of Dumbledore trusting the > > > wrong people to fulfill DADA position. > > > > > > > Pippin: > > Oh, it doesn't look so bad now. We know that the position is > jinxed, > > apparently to bring out the worst in whoever holds it. How many of > > us would still have our positions in a year under conditions like > > that? Alla: I am afraid it DOES still look bad to me, Pippin. :-) Dumbledore invited at least three people, who were wrong to be invited from the beginning, curse or not. OK, Quirell was hired earlier, but still Dumbledore, IMO did not know that Voldie was hiding in his head. I am also not sure what do you mean by Lockhart was intended to be the victim of the curse. Intended by Dumbledore? And of course we have Fake!Moody. > > > Pippin: > > Snape has many times made Harry unhappy. He has threatened to > > do worse. But when has Snape *ever* between the time he returned > > to Hogwarts and the events on the tower, endangered Harry or > > any other child? We can't fault him for the failure of the > occlumency > > lessons any more, not if we're taking things at face value, right? Alla: Sure we can, Pippin. :-) Remember Harry feeling worse after the lessons? Harry may be damaged to learn Occlumency, but I am doubting that Occlumency per se made him hurt that much. JMO of course. Oh, and this is also the example of Snape endangering Harry, IMO, not to mentioning that awfully suspicious time difference which Neri described so wonderfully. And of course I think that Snape endangered Neville plenty of times in order for Snape to become Neville's biggest fear. > Pippin: > > And at face value, a shove that knocks a boy to the ground and > > a jarfull of cockroaches that misses is just a shove and a miss, > not > > an attempt at murder. > Alla: Sure it is not attempt at murder, but this is an attempt to physically hurt a student, just as a throwing curse at Harry at the end of HBP. And we also have "full blown murder" , which of course I take at face value too. :-) > Pippin: > > It seems to me that "face value" theorists have to extrapolate > > just as much as the rest of us to come up with a consistent > > position. :-) > > > > Alla: Well, I am not sure about other face value theorists, but my position is that the closer we are to the end, more and more things are indeed to be meant taken at face value. JKR after all said that there are many answers in HBP, not all of them, but many. I doubt that what she meant that she hidden many new things from us. One book left after all, only one book. As to level of extrapolation... I am afraid I have to bow to your greatness in that department. :-) > houyhnhnm: > I take Dumbledore's confession of his "mistakes" as just another > expression of his whimsical, self-deprecating style, a facade behind > which exists a supremely powerful and self-confident wizard. Alla: I take them as declaration of mistakes, especially since JKR said that Dumbledore does make mistakes and big ones too. Houyhmmmm: > Yes, Harry had a miserable 9 3/4 years with the Dursleys, but has it > damaged him beyond repair? Dumbledore doesn't seem to think so. > Would Harry really have been better off as the pampered little prince > in a wizarding foster family? Or in danger from the Lestranges or > other DEs after his parents were killed or from Voldemort himself > every summer after his regeneration? Alla: I hated "he is better away from WW" explanation. That is why I was incredibly happy that JKR does not mention this explanation anywhere in OOP and HBP, personally I think that this is one of the occasions, which Lupinlore categorises as "JKR backed away from the message she did not intend to send". :-) No, I don't think that it would be good enough to justify what Harry endured at the hands of Dursleys, what Dumbledore FINALLY called what it was in HBP. "he has known nothing but neglect and often cruelty at your hands" - p.55 BUT I don't hold it against Dumbledore anymore, because as I mentioned earlier the level of contempt he showed to Dursleys in chapter 3 was enough to convince me that he did only because he wanted Harry to survive. Houyhmmm: > If Sirius had been allowed his freedom, might he not have died all the > sooner, and in a way that compromised the Order? Alla: Or he would have escaped the depression, being stucked in the House he longed to escape during his youth and maybe was feeling better psychologically and would have been able to live longer. I see no justification to what Dumbledore did to Sirius, I mean, of course he wanted to keep Sirius alive, as he says in OOP, but IMO he demonstrated such deep misunderstanding of Sirius' nature, who is very active person, that yes I think Dumbledore committed grave mistake. He meant well though, I will concede that much. Houyhmmmm: Dumbledore frequently had to choose between two > problematic options and, it seems to me, for the most he chose wisely. Alla: He may have chosen wisely when he did not need to figure out the psychological issues of his soldiers or his teachers, when he did needed it, I think he did not always do a good job. JMO of course, Alla. From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Sep 9 00:49:53 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 00:49:53 -0000 Subject: Depth? Things to take on their face value (Was: Sirius' loyalty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139817 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > I take Dumbledore's confession of his "mistakes" as just another > expression of his whimsical, self-deprecating style, a facade behind > which exists a supremely powerful and self-confident wizard. Oh, certainly Dumbledore is often whimsical and light in his tone. But why should we not believe he is being serious about his mistakes, even if he is speaking of them in a tone of gentle self-deprecation? Often a light, gentle tone is the best way to convey painful truths (and often it is not). In this case, I would say that Dumbledore is trying not to shake Harry's confidence by dwelling too long and/or too seriously on the fact that the Greatest Wizard in the World can make mistakes. However, he knows the cost of not sharing information with Harry (definitely a huge mistake on his part in the past), so he makes sure to talk about his mistakes, but to use a gentle, whimsical tone that takes some of the sting and fear out of it for Harry. I don't think this is being manipulative, as some people see it. It is merely being diplomatic and maintaining a regard for Harry's feelings and fears. > > Like maddmorgan in another thread(Message 139779), I question whether > Dumbledore really has made mistakes. He has had some hard choices to > make and things haven't always turned out as he would have wished, but > is that the same thing as making mistakes? If he thinks, on reflection, that other alternatives would have yielded better results, then yes, that is the same thing as making mistakes. > > Yes, Harry had a miserable 9 3/4 years with the Dursleys, but has it > damaged him beyond repair? Dumbledore doesn't seem to think so. > Would Harry really have been better off as the pampered little prince > in a wizarding foster family? Or in danger from the Lestranges or > other DEs after his parents were killed or from Voldemort himself > every summer after his regeneration? Yes, I think Harry would have been better off. I agree with Alla 100% that this is one of Dumbledore's egregious mistakes. > > If Sirius had been allowed his freedom, might he not have died all the > sooner, and in a way that compromised the Order? > Sure. And he might have lived to be a splendid contributor to the fight against Voldemort. One can always predicate shadowy dangers that MIGHT have come to be. These generally do little to redress the disastrous things that DID happen. And so, yes, Dumbledore made a mistake here as well. > The reason that it is courageous to make choices rather than to wait > passively to be overtaken by fate is that one doesn't have control > over the outcome. Dumbledore frequently had to choose between two > problematic options and, it seems to me, for the most he chose wisely. And it seems to me, and several others, that he was badly cut off from human emotions and beneficial counsel, and that he made many very bad, and in Harry's case, damaging, choices (going with JKR's statement about Harry being damaged). Lupinlore From dossett at lds.net Fri Sep 9 00:25:02 2005 From: dossett at lds.net (rtbthw_mom) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 00:25:02 -0000 Subject: Voldemort in Albania WAS: Re: Horcrux Issue In-Reply-To: <20050908190223.97424.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139818 > Juli now: > > I believe there are a few reasons Voldemort stood all those years as vapor!mort in Albania: Pat again: But - why Albania?? Okay, I see the point about the Aurors, but he has no body: apparently he left no instructions like, if something strange should happen, check out Albania! Maybe it's JKR's way of just getting him out of the big picture, I don't know. But it seems way off base to me. Thanks. ~Pat From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Sep 9 01:20:49 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 01:20:49 -0000 Subject: Depth? Things to take on their face value (Was: Sirius' loyalty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139819 lupinlore: > Yes, I think Harry would have been better off. I agree with Alla > 100% that this is one of Dumbledore's egregious mistakes. houyhnhnm: What would have been the right choice, then? From sherriola at earthlink.net Fri Sep 9 01:27:39 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 18:27:39 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Depth? Things to take on their face value (Was: Sirius' loyalty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <009d01c5b4dd$b0d0e760$423a79a5@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 139820 lupinlore: > Yes, I think Harry would have been better off. I agree with Alla > 100% that this is one of Dumbledore's egregious mistakes. houyhnhnm: What would have been the right choice, then? Sherry now: What about having a family like the Weasleys raise him? Or perhaps having bothered to find out the truth about Sirius and then letting Harry live with his true guardian, the one his parents chose for him? Don't get me wrong, I love Dumbledore. But he is a far more interesting character with flaws, one who makes huge mistakes, than as the epitome of perfection and always being right. JKR said, didn't she, in the muggle Net/tlc interview, that he is not a Christ figure? People or characters who make mistakes and who can admit it are far more interesting than those who are perfect all the time, always right, always good, always wise. I like Dumbledore even more now, even though I do think he made the biggest mistake of all in trusting Snape, a mistake that cost him his life. Yet he would not regret the thing in him that makes him trust where others might not have. Sherry From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Fri Sep 9 01:42:03 2005 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 01:42:03 -0000 Subject: FILK: Forty-Something Pete Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139821 Forty-Something Pete To the tune of the title tune from the musical Forty-Second Street THE SCENE: Spinner's End. At the beginning of Year Six, NARCISSA MALFOY sings of the latest and oddest trajectory of the erstwhile Marauder NARCISSA: At the edge of dreary Spinner's End The Dark Lord's top aide dwells And he's pledged to be the winner when He Dumble sends to Hell A fearsome task is what Voldy asks So to help and brighten up his day He gave Snape a valet Snapey's suite is now kept neat Via You-Know-Who's pet rat Pettigrew . (During the instrumental bridge, enter Pettigrew, armed with an awesome arsenal of cleaning implements) Without broom, watch him vacuum He's Voldemort's magic janitor Forty-Something Pete In retreat from war-time heat If it's spic and span you want, he's your man Forty-Something Pete Ex-Marauder sold out Potter Now he bows and scrapes Drinks he's mixin' for `latrix `n' His new master Snape Scabbers mouse, who now keeps house, Is the underling of the Eater elite Forty-Something Pete (During the second instrumental bridge, Pettigrew tap dances his way through a regimen of housecleaning that would cause Molly and Petunia's respective jaws to gape with astonishment and envy. As the music slows, enter Snape, who settles in an armchair with a leather- bound biography of Grindelwald. As the tempo picks up again, the two wizards almost come to blows when Snape refuses to lift his feet so Pettigrew can vacuum beneath them.) His deceit remains effete He is You-Know-Who's pet rat Pettigrew Forty-Something Pete. For the Prince, he'll wax and rinse He's determined to do what vermin do Forty-Something Pete. With his squeegee he gets seamy Earhole at the door, As he's mopping, he's eavesdropping For Lord Voldemort. Is Wormtail destined to bail?. Will he underhanded treason repeat? Ratty, batty, tatty, fatty Forty-Something Pete! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From AllieS426 at aol.com Fri Sep 9 01:43:20 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 01:43:20 -0000 Subject: First chapter of Book 7 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139822 I think it would be really, really interesting (and satisfying!!) if the first chapter of book 7 was an excerpt from the past. What I'd like to see, specifically, is the night of the attack at Godric's Hollow (and possibly the following day, the "missing 24 hours.") JKR could explain right up front what exactly happened that night, the role of Severus Snape, if any (insert highly melodramatic "Lily, oh Lily, what have I done," for those of you who like that ship, I'm still on the fence about it), when did Hagrid show up, where was Dumbledore, where was Harry during the missing 24 hours, etc. I think it would be a VERY nice lead-in to the book that has to tie up so many loose ends! It doesn't necessarily have to be the first chapter - I guess it could be done flashback style in a Pensieve mid-book. And I wonder - does anyone think that the "missing 24 hours" might be another oversight on JKR's part, like the number of students at Hogwarts and fans at the Quidditch World Cup? Or would she have plotted those early details meticulously? Allie From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 01:49:31 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 01:49:31 -0000 Subject: Killing tears the soul apart redux. WAS: Re: Snape's penance? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139823 Gatta wrote: > What I am puzzled about is how the horcruxes work divisionwise. Can> Voldemort control how much of his soul goes into the horcrux du jour? It sounds like not; Dumbledore says that *murder* rips the soul, so he would be left with whatever pieces of whatever size the killing bestows upon him. If the ripping proceeds along the lines of mathematical division, putting half of the soul he has left into the horcrux, he would end up with an arrangement like so: > > http://www.katmac.cncdsl.com/horcrux.GIF > > Which leaves him with about 1/64th of a soul left when he faces Harry in the final battle, I should think that would leave Voldemort rather depleted, to say the least, when he has to confront Harry. Carol responds: I've wondered the same thing, but possibly JKR hasn't thought about it. For her, the soul seems to be sufficiently tangible to be sucked out of a body by a Dementor--through the mouth--which suggests a concept something like that of the ancient Greek word "psyche" (can't do Greek letters, sorry), meaning "breath," "spirit," "animating principle," or maybe "pneuma," meaning "wind" or "breath" but associated with the Latin "spiritus" in early Christian writings and in Shelley's "Ode to the West Wind," which plays beautifully on these related meanings. For the curious, here's a link: http://eir.library.utoronto.ca/rpo/display/poem1902.html What I'm trying to say is I don't think that the soul in the Potterverse is a solid object that can be divided into halves and quarters and so forth like a pie, with each succeeding "half" being smaller until the portion of soul remaining in Voldie is so small that it is hardly worth dividing. It's not even like air molecules (a balloon that's lost half its air is visibly smaller than a full balloon). Instead I think the soul expands (metaphorically or literally) to fill the space formerly occupied by the complete soul when part of it is split off, so that the Horcruxes all have equal portions of soul and that the *size* of Voldie's soul, if it could be measured, has not changed. That being the case, his soul would have multiplied by dividing (think cell division as opposed to mathematical division), and he would actually have *more* soul (quantitatively speaking) than he would if his soul were intact inside his body. We see that he was able to survive with what JKR probably conceives of as one seventh of his soul, a concept only possible is all the parts are equal sized. (We know JKR is not mathematically gifted, so she may not even know that she's confused here. Or maybe I'm attributing my own confusion to her.) The quality or purity of Voldie's soul, OTOH, may have become progressively tainted. Or killing his father and grandparents at age sixteen may have corrupted his soul to the point that further corruption was scarcely possible. (By the time of HBP, it's so putrid and rotten that a Dementor wouldn't want it.) Okay, I haven't cleared anything up, I realize, and I may have just blurred the picture further. But I've tried various mental models--a pie, plasma, earthworms (which form two new adults when cut in half), amoebas (which multiply by dividing and expand or grow to adult size), wind-breath-spirit, and I can't find a model that works for me. Does anyone have a model or paradigm that more effectively solves the problem of progressively smaller soul pieces and is consistent with soul-sucking Dementors? (No algebra, Valky, please. ;-) ) One more thing that confuses me. Slughorn says that killing (or murder) splits the soul, yet Dumbledore says that only one wizard besides LV (almost certainly Grindelwald) has split his soul, meaning made a Horcrux. So splitting the soul seems to have two different meanings. Maybe murder *enables* a powerful and evil wizard to split his damaged soul and create a Horcrux (if he knows the ancient magic required to do so). Carol, wondering what happens to the soul of a ghost like NHN who fears to go beyond the veil From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 01:58:34 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 01:58:34 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's decisions (was:Re: Depth? Things to take on their face value...) In-Reply-To: <009d01c5b4dd$b0d0e760$423a79a5@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139824 > >>lupinlore: > > > Yes, I think Harry would have been better off. I agree with > > > Alla 100% that this is one of Dumbledore's egregious mistakes. > >>houyhnhnm: > > What would have been the right choice, then? > >>Sherry: > What about having a family like the Weasleys raise him? Or perhaps > having bothered to find out the truth about Sirius and then letting > Harry live with his true guardian, the one his parents chose for > him? > Betsy Hp: Why, Sherry, I thought you *liked* the Weasley family and Sirius! Don't you think what Bellatrix and her boys did to Neville's parents would have *paled* in comparison to the vengence she'd have visited upon those protecting the boy who killed her master? Crucio would have just been a start I think. And I'll bet she'd have started with Ginny and worked her way up the Weasley child chain. Sirius is tough, yes. But Neville's parents were both Aurors. He'd have gone down, just as they did. And the story would have ended much sooner, I think. "There once was a boy who lived. Until one day, he didn't." > >>Sherry: > Don't get me wrong, I love Dumbledore. But he is a far more > interesting character with flaws, one who makes huge mistakes, than > as the epitome of perfection and always being right. > Betsy Hp: I think in this case, Dumbledore was like Churchill in WWII, allowing a British town to be bombed into oblivian (people included) to keep the fact that they'd broken the German code a secret. Both men faced a horrible decision that had no "perfect" solution. They did the best they could with what they had, and IMO, they made the right call. One I'm grateful I've never had to make. But the very fact they had to live with their decision and I'm sure hated that they had to make that sort of choice means that neither are "the epitome of perfection". Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 02:34:54 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 02:34:54 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's decisions (was:Re: Depth? Things to take on their face value...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139825 > > >>Sherry: > > Don't get me wrong, I love Dumbledore. But he is a far more > > interesting character with flaws, one who makes huge mistakes, than > > as the epitome of perfection and always being right. > > > > Betsy Hp: > I think in this case, Dumbledore was like Churchill in WWII, They did the > best they could with what they had, and IMO, they made the right > call. One I'm grateful I've never had to make. But the very fact > they had to live with their decision and I'm sure hated that they had > to make that sort of choice means that neither are "the epitome of > perfection". Alla: Oh, I don't know about the "best he could", Betsy. I am really not so sure about it. I mean, not to go back to Dursleys, but checking on Harry once in a while would have been nice, especially since we know now that Petunia did not have anything over Dumbledore's head - that he did not promise her family some kind of protection in exchange for taking Harry , or something like that. ( Unless I am forgetting something, of course) And I certainly do not think that Dumbledore did the best he could by Sirius, in fact I am more sure of it than with Harry's case, because as I said I am inclined to believe that Dumbledore indeed wanted Harry to survive and maybe at least in Harry's case he had some misguided ideas that Dursleys WILL treat Harry as a son, because he asked them to and because Petunia may have some scrap of humanity left in her, because she took Harry in. In Sirius' situation though, Albus went against the very basics of Sirius' nature, when IMO it would have been easy enough to let Sirius do something useful for the Order either by Using invisibility cloak or in his animagus form, which was not widely known ( I mean some knew, but I think that if Sirius knew that he was doing something useful , he would have been more careful, IMO). Instead he basically put Sirius' in the house,which was more like a prison to him and which made him succimb to depression with amazing speed. No, I don't think that was the best Albus could do. JMO of course, Alla From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 02:44:55 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 19:44:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldemort in Albania WAS: Re: Horcrux Issue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050909024455.51972.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139826 Pat: But - why Albania?? Okay, I see the point about the Aurors, but he has no body: apparently he left no instructions like, if something strange should happen, check out Albania! Maybe it's JKR's way of just getting him out of the big picture, I don't know. But it seems way off base to me. Juli again: hmm good question. What is *So* important about Albania that Voldie chose to hide there, why couldn't it be any other country? what's so special about Albania? Maybe Jo just likes the way it sounds Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Albania known for its vampires? Doesn't Transylvania (where Dracula comes from) is in Albania? Maybe there're quite a few Dark Wizards there so he would feel *at home* ther? I dunno. Just thinking of possible explanations. Juli Aol: jlnbtr Yahoo: jlnbtr --------------------------------- Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 9 03:11:58 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 03:11:58 -0000 Subject: Depth? Things to take on their face value (Was: Sirius' loyalty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139827 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > Jen: My theme at the moment is 'the simplest may be the best > explanation' so I agree with this, Nora . This idea was certainly > at the forefront of HBP, when Harry/Dumbledore wrapped up the loose > ends from OOTP: No, Occlumency wasn't needed after all and Harry was > no good at closing his mind anyway. Inhabiting Harry's body and > feeling his love was enough to send Voldemort running. Harry > is 'over' his anger and funk of OOTP because Sirius wouldn't want > him wallowing, and life's too short. Harry is Dumbledore's man > through-and-through because Dumbledore is going to die...erm...I > mean because Harry had a miraculous change of heart from > OOTP.....well....that one needs no explanation, right? ;) > > Other simple ideas: Draco really did make a detour through the DE > camp and had a true change of heart. Lupin & Tonks are for real-- > more love in the world. Marianne: I think the jury is still out re: Draco's vacation in DE-Land. He may well have been on the brink and decided, after DD's death, that this is not where he wants to be. All fine and dandy, but I'd really like to see some sort of remorse from him about how he almost killed Katie Bell and Ron with his earlier attempts at offing DD. And don't get me started on Lupin/Tonks. I'm sorry, but the foreshadowing for this did not include the anvil type hints that existed for R/Hr. This didn't just come out of left field; it came from several states away. And, yes, I agree, JKR may consider this for real, but she could have done a better job presenting it. Jen: > Then we have the biggie, the one which is harder to accept: > Dumbledore trusts Snape and since Dumbledore is so clever he > sometimes makes comparatively 'huger' mistakes than the rest. Hmmmm. > Still can't accept that one quite yet. Not because it would make > Dumbledore a fool, since choosing to love and trust over feeling > hate and suspicion are 'generally preferable' as DD (JKR) would say. > But it would negate Dumbledore's life work, in a sense. He trusted > someone he shouldn't have, allowed him into Hogwarts & the Order, > and it led to death and destruction of many of the things he holds > dear. And the chain is just beginning, the ramifications of > Dumbledore's huge mistake would mount in Book 7 if Snape truly is > working at Voldemort's side. If this one is true, the real > redemption will be Harry righting Dumbledore's wrong. Marianne: And the problem with this would be??? So, DD would prove himself wrong and Harry will find a way to right this. I don't see a problem in the overall arc of the story. Snape turns out to be an evil bastard, or a man who is not evil, but ultimately falls to his darker instincts/passions, and Harry, (the hero, right?) turns Snape's mistakes, transgressions, sins, whatever, into a force for good. I don't see this as a negation of DD's life work. He's someone who has valued people as individuals and recognized that society's tendency to lump people into stereotypical groups is wrong. He's recognized that people may strive their utmost to achieve the best that they can, and thay they may still fall short. He shows that to forgive can be a lifeline to people trying to turn their lives around. None of this should be denigrated just because some of DD's projects show themselves not up to the task. If some of the people he gave second chances to proved themselves unworthy, the fault is with them, not Dumbledore. Marianne From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 03:12:50 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 03:12:50 -0000 Subject: Horcruxes, souls and bodies Was Re: either must die at the hand of the other, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139828 Saraquel replies to Geoff, Ceridwen and Valky: Geoff wrote: >As an aside, I often wonder whether we are assuming that Jo >Rowling, as an individual person, been able to work on some of the >minutiae of the >plot and allocate as much time to it as the august body of >contributors here on HPFGU seem able to do. Saraquel: I have these thoughts frequently, too :-) However, when you are talking about something as integral to the plot as horcruxes, I think that JKR will have spent a great deal of time thinking about the mechanics of how human beings are made up and how she can work through her theme. If you have ever tried to make up a fictional universe which differs from our own, you will know how much time you need to spend thinking through your ideas so that when you get to the Bang! bits, they ring absolutely true. The last reaction you want from your reader at that time is Duh! How does that work? However, she knew what she wanted to say from the off, so would have spent less time on figuring it out than we do. But consistency is everything, and I think that she has built her world on simple premises, and that is why the world she has crafted for us is so appealing. In order to tie up Tom Riddle Horcrux `coming alive' in CoS and Voldemort returning to his body in GoF, she must know what the relationship between bodies and souls is. If she doesn't, then my respect for her as a master craftswoman is misplaced, and I doubt that very much. Geoff wrote: >Have readers ever written an email or a letter or said something >to find that the reader or hearer has put a totally different slant >on what was meant? Saraquel: Absolutely agree with you here Geoff. Hence I always think that my speculations are what I am getting *out* of the book, rather than what JKR put *into* it. However, that said, I do think that seeing if we can figure out a plausible explanation of JKRs underlying premises for the Potterverse may help us to get closer to resolving some of our questions about Horcruxes and what Harry is facing. In doing this I think that it is very important to keep coming back to canon, and seeing if the ideas are contradicted. A very Karl Popper attitude here ?If all the swans ever observed were white, it is still not possible to ever assert that all swans are white! Who knows ? Book 7, Harry Potter and the Black Swan :-) Ceridwen wrote: >Going on, then, I'm going to have to agree to the pieces of soul >returning to the original, or in this case, substitute body. I was >completely against that, agreeing more that the pieces of soul >returned to the 'ether' or wherever it is that bits of energy go >when released. Valky wrote: >I am not sure about that. I actually begin to think that when his >body was destroyed his spirit left him, and only the mangled form >of his last piece of soul remained. I lean towards it having been >written this way because Voldies recount of his life as Vapourmort >tends to sound like an existence without spirit, without impetus >for life. Saraquel: As I said in my last post, I tend to Valky's view here. But I've been thinking more about what a soul piece is. I've tended to think of it as a somehow solid thing, like a chip (I don't mean fried or burned here :-)). But reading about Voldemort's description of Vapormort, it's almost as though the soul isn't so much a thing (physical) but a personality. A collection of thoughts, will, emotions ? elements that make up the personality. Vaportmort had to will himself to exist at every moment. I almost get the feeling that he had to hold this disparate sense of himself together. It would also explain Voldemort's being unsure of exactly what he was, if he was formless. If that's true, then a soul fragment released from its container would have a tendency to simply break up and evaporate into nothingness. So I'd agree with Geoff and the, back to the ether theory. Would the personality of a young Voldemort have the strength of will to keep itself together after being released from the horcrux? ? Don't know, possibly not. This might also explain the desire of Dementors to suck out souls as food. They feed on emotions and would break the soul down in their digestive system am I really writing this?? It seems that in order to exist beyond the veil, you need both your personality and a container for it ? body and soul. So why might having *bits* of your personality not in your current body *prevent* you from going beyond the veil/ dying? Hmmm, have got some thoughts but Oh, all right then, since you've twisted my arm. But dear reader, at this point I must warn you that as JKR has not given us any canon for what happens when you die, this is purely speculative, speculative. I'll put it between ***** so you can skip it if you want to. Saraquel continues, glancing at the list elves, who are watching with eyes narrowed, but she is quite prepared to abandon arguments and accept a slap on the wrist if requested to do so. Hmmm, do I detect a hint of Snape's love for lawn order in myself? ********* Valky wrote: >What is interesting though is that Diary Tom has all three of the >essential pieces that we are discussing here when Harry destroys the >Horcrux. Is a partial body and a partial spirit enough to endow a >partial soul with a normal death? It's coming back to the Last Judgement Love thread again. If, at death, there is a right of passage which takes you through that love and forces you to confront the truth about yourself, then not having all of your personality present would be a big problem. Also, one wonders, when Voldemort made a Horcrux did he lose some of his memories of the past with that Horcrux? If so, then some of his misdeeds would not be present. I could imagine that Voldemort meeting Last Judgement Love without all of himself being present would cause a huge bang! Big enough to smash his body to smithereens in the process. It might then follow, that if you destroy horcruxes and the soul piece within them disintegrates, you can never regain it, and therefore never get past LJL and beyond the veil. Hence the absolute horror of being punished by having your soul sucked out by dementors. It would mean you could never get beyond the veil and join up with all your loved ones again. *********** Ceridwen wrote: >Nearly Headless Nick suggested that ghosts are what is left when a >person is afraid of dying, or unwilling to move on. Ghosts are >spirits. Saraquel: Ghosts leave an imprint of themselves on the earth, according to Nearly Headless Nick. My current theory here is that the personality remains on the earth ? i.e. the soul, and (referring to my arguments from my previous post) lives in the mould, made out of magical power/spirit, *without* the physical element of matter being present. It would appear from what Nearly Headless Nick says to Harry at the end of OotP (p758) that wizards can choose to become ghosts. But exactly what point this happens is not mentioned. The fact that NHN does not know what happens when you die, almost implies that the choice was made before he died, or at latest, the moment of death. It's interesting that he gives his reason for staying, that he was afraid of death ? same reason as Voldemort. Ceridwen wrote: >Voldemort's snake-like appearance, his abilitiy to >speak Parseltongue, and the whole imagery from The House of Gaunt > could Voldemort's Patronus, and his shape if he ever became >an Anamagus, be a snake? Valky wrote: >Voldies Spirit. Does he have a kind of Snake Spirit? Meaning that >his appearence as a snakelike creature rather than a man kind of >demonstrates his loss of balance between soul and spirit, he's been >cutting and dumping bits of his soul and hence becomes kind of >spirit heavy. The blurred features are the snake ghost in him >becoming more visible as the human soul fades and becomes >transparent. So to say his original face has faded and thats the >blur, and the snake features are the waxing spirit face becoming >clearer. Saraquel: I loved these ideas. Now I'm thinking that the personality embodied in the soul is what makes us human. Animals have less ability to reason and we suspect a more limited range of emotions. Hence, if you keep chopping bits of your personality off and storing them in kilner jars, the remaining bit starts to become less sophisticated and more animal like. This would seem to be confirmed by Voldemort's complete lack of a rounded personality. That you have an affinity with a specific animal is clearly shown by animagi and patronus charms. It would also imply, that there is a close relationship between your personality and the body you inhabit. Seeing as we have seen Diary!Horcrux create a body, and the body it created relflected the state of Riddle's personality at the time (possibly first division of the soul) that would be born out - he did not look like a snake, nor have red eyes. Also, Tom Riddle in CoS, definitely had a more diverse and rounded personality than the Voldemort that we have seen in later books. So as Voldemort's personality becomes more basic, so he starts to resemble the animal that most represents his fundamental personality ? the snake. Interestingly, in PoA, Sirius comments that he had a sweet nature when in his animagus form, indicating, that deep down he is a good man. I've just looked for the canon quote for that and can't find it immediately, I'm wondering if I've got some cross-pollination with the film here. Finally, I think I'll just wonder aloud what a horcrux is, and whether Harry could possibly be one. Well, if I'm right about a soul fragment being disparate formless elements of the personality, I think making a horcrux might involve imbuing an object with these elements, rather than containing them. Although, you could think of them as being rather like a gas (hmmm, gas explosion at Godric's Hollow) in which case you would need a sealed container. Locket that couldn't be opened ? yes that fits - but what about the ring ? there was nothing to suggest that it had a hollow centre. Although the single crack, rather than total disintegration might imply a container rather than a fusing at element level. If Harry is a horcrux, according to this theory it means he has some of Voldemort's personality in him. Well yes, he does show some signs of anger and vengeance, but not cruelty ? which to me is Voldmort's trait par excellence. Jury's still out, although the sorting hat looks at the personality type and judges from that, so it looks like it's going to be a while yet before they come back and deliver the verdict. However, if Harry really is a horcrux, then yes I think Harry could destroy the soul part (personality) that is within him without dying, just as we can change our personality by the choices that we make. Sounds like an epiphany moment to me. This seems to be edging me closer and closer to the prophecy, maybe I'll get there in my next post. Saraquel From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 9 03:36:36 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 03:36:36 -0000 Subject: Rulebreaking (was OFH!Snape scenario) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139829 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "saraquel_omphale" wrote: > > houyhnmhnm wrote: > >Snape has an almost prissy regard for lawn order. He's still > >carrying an enormous chip around on his shoulder over the fact that > >the > >rule-breaking, DD's trust-betraying Marauders were the fair-haired > >sons, while School Boy Severus (who kept his promise to DD not to > >reveal Lupin's secret for somewhere around 18 years) is treated like > >the bastard step child. His biggest gripe about Harry is the way > >Harry is allowed to get away with rule breaking. > > Saraquel: > When I first read this, I thought no, because I was thinking about > the creative Snape who breaks the rules in the potions book and is > constantly looking for new ways to do things, and the spy!Snape, who > has made up his own rule book. But then I reread it and saw what > you were talking about, and absolutely agreed with you. Which is of > course a seeming contradiction. But thinking about that seems to > get to the heart of Snape. > > Yes I agree, he absolutely loves lawn order. On the inside is > someone who wants to write the rules ? who does write the rules for > himself and then lives by them because he has created them and knows > that they work. An intensely logical man, who plots his way through > life. He has enormous respect for rules and I think that is what > really p****s him off re the Marauders ? he follows the rules (if we > are to believe his lack of punishment record), but doesn't get any > attention for that from anyone, it doesn't bring him the respect > that he thinks he deserves. Marianne: Which brings up another question. If the rules are laid out, and one follows the rules, why then should one expect extra attention, praise, rewards, pats on the head, or what have you for following them? Following the rules is what is expected. Doing so should not lead to higher recognition from the powers that be, whether we're talking about the headmaster of a school or whatever version of a god figure one wishes to follow. I think Snape's annoyance with the Marauders was that their punishment for rulebreaking didn't change their behavior. McGonagall's and Hagrid's comments in the Three Broomsticks in PoA suggest that the teaching staff were well aware of the trouble- making potential of at least James and Sirius, if not all four Marauders. And Snape's punishment of Harry in HBP in transcribing the old detention records where James' and Sirius' names showed up with regular frequency seem to indicate that, for two boys known for their intelligence, they got caught in their rule-breaking fairly frequently. I think that what got up Snape's nose as a student was that he never thought that what the staff of Hogwarts meted out in punishment was sufficient because he never saw that it changed James' or Sirius' behavior. Thus, it would be easy for him to say they were never punished enough because nothing ever changed. JKR has described Sirius as being the most rebellious of the Marauders. So, perhaps what was considered by Hogwarts staff as standard, acceptable punishment for misdeeds would never rein him in. And this, I think, would make Snape crazy. I dearly want to get ALL the background on the Prank, including whatever punishment was meted out. Marianne From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Fri Sep 9 04:07:00 2005 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 04:07:00 -0000 Subject: Voldemort in Albania WAS: Re: Horcrux Issue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139830 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rtbthw_mom" wrote: > > Juli now: > > > > I believe there are a few reasons Voldemort stood all those years > as vapor!mort in Albania: > > > Pat again: > > But - why Albania?? Okay, I see the point about the Aurors, but he > has no body: apparently he left no instructions like, if something > strange should happen, check out Albania! Maybe it's JKR's way of > just getting him out of the big picture, I don't know. But it seems > way off base to me. > I've just filled by hip flask with Polyjuice Potion to morph into Professor Binns. After Halloween 1981, Voldemort retreated to the nation of Albania after his attempt to murder Harry Potter disastrously boomeranged on him. Except for a brief interlude in 1991-1992 with Professor Quirrell, he remained in that tiny nation until his return to England under Wormtail's escort in the summer of 1994. Geographically, Albania is a small nation on the Adriatic Sea, about the size of Maryland, it is about 210 miles north to south, 90 miles east-west at its widest point. It enjoys a Mediterranean climate along the coastal area, cooler temperatures in the higher elevations. Its population was roughly 2.5 million in 1980. A tourist-oriented site offers some of its attractions: http://www.geocities.com/paris/louvre/6820/ I don't think JKR's selection of Albania as the land to which Voldemort retreated was an arbitrary one. Assuming that Voldemort in his shattered condition wanted above all else an isolated inhospitable region in which to recuperate, a place in which a high frequency of misery and suffering would abound, he could scarcely have made a better choice than Albania, circa 1980. To understand Albania in the 1980s, some historical background is necessary: The region now known as Albania has a long history of suffering, poverty, political and religious conflict, as far back as the days of the Roman Empire, it was to later fall beneath the sway of such hegemonies as the Byzantine Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It formally constituted itself a nation in 1912, in the days just prior to WWI. Following a long series of weak and ineffectual governments, Albania was conquered by Fascist Italy in 1939, and entered WWII on the side of the Axis. However, there was always strong resistance to the Fascist occupation, led by the nascent Communist Party under Evner Hoxha (1908-1985), one of those real-life Lord Voldemorts who have been responsible for making the 20th century the most murderous in recorded history. The Communist and their allies drove the fascists out of their nation, and took formal control of the government on November 29, 1944. Albania was first Central European nation to adopt the Communist form of government, and remained the only European nation to adopt it without Soviet intervention. Over the next several decades, Albania followed a familiar pattern of Marxist "reforms": collectivation, five-year plans, abolition of legal political opposition, governmental control of all cultural media, etc. However, Hoxha established a tyranny even more oppressive (though far less geopolitically significant) than even the regimes of Stalin or Mao. He defiantly decreed that he alone practiced Marxist-Leninist doctrine in a pure and uncontaminated form, and eventually broke off diplomatic relations with all other communist nations for what he saw as deviations from true Marxism: beginning with neighboring Yugoslavia in 1949, and the Soviet Union (along with the other Marxist nations of Central Europe) in 1961, he finally cut off ties with his only remaining big-power ally China in July 1978. Hoxha strongly disapproved of the liberalization of economic policy adopted by Deng Xiopang, following the death of Mao. For the rest of Hoxha's rule (until 1985) Albania was perhaps the most politically isolated nation on earth. Human rights abuses were widespread. Albania was called "the little nation with the big gulag." As of 1984, Hoxha maintained at least six prisons, nine concentration camps, and 14 areas of internal exile. Conditions were often extremely brutal, and prisoners sometimes were reported to commit suicide Watching a television broadcast from Yugoslavia, conversing with a foreign tourist, or possessing books deemed inappropriate by authorities could result in a prison sentence. The families of convicted prisoners often held to be "socially dangerous" had to serve the same sentence as the condemned. (Amnesty International found no examples of acquittals) Although every Communist regime imposed great restrictions on religious liberty, they still tolerated it to varying degrees, and guaranteed its free expression in their written constitutions (however much they may have suppressed its expression in practice). Albania acquired the unique distinction of being the only nation to ever attempt the complete abolition of religion, with a constitutional prohibition of religious practice. This was formally entered into the constitution in November 1967. Earlier that year (between February and May 1967), the Albanian government launched a draconian anti-religious campaign (the primary religions of Albania are Roman Catholic, Albanian Orthodox, and Islam, with a small number of Jews and Protestants). Over this three-month span, all 2,169 of the nation's churches, synagogues and mosques were stormed by the police or by the military, stripped of their artifacts and forcibly closed. The physical structures were then either demolished or converted to other uses. Priests, ministers and imans were ordered to denounce their religion or face arrest. The leadership of the Jewish, Christian and Islamic places of worship were imprisoned, and most of them were executed. Ordinary citizens were required to turn in all crucifixes, icons, Bibles, Korans, etc., and their possession. "The dissenter must be destroyed like a weasel in the chicken coop," declared Hoxha. So after 1978, Albania was quite isolated, with only minimal contact with the West, and no contact at all with other Marxist states. The government launched a campaign of "economic independence." Hoxha wanted to preserve Albania from "ideological contamination from the west. He reminded his people continually of `savage encirclement and economic blockade of the Western bloc and the revisionist-socialist imperialism of the Eastern bloc." He rehearsed the historic threats to Albanian independence and warned darkly of the hostile intent of its near and distant neighbors. He dramatized the imminent threat by constructing many thousands of mushroom-shaped concrete pillboxes to resist invasion from the beaches , the mountain passes and the skies above. He induced a siege mentality by instituting universal military training and the enlistment of all the fine arts to intensify the war psychosis. Foreign newspapers, magazines and films were forbidden. Travel abroad and foreign tourism within the country were carefully restricted. As a result, Albania was characterized as isolated, a hermit nation, xenophobic, the Tibet of Europe. Hoxha's paranoia seemed to increase with age, and during the last few years of his life, a number of top aides were executed or imprisoned. In December 1981, the Prime Minister was reported to have committed suicide. Hoxha died on April 11, 1985 coincidentally, a month after the death of Konstantine Chernenko, the last of the old-line Soviet leaders from the Stalinist generation. Though the nation was plunged in grief, and pledged to honor his memory forever, Albania almost immediately began moving toward realigning itself with the world, under the rule of Ramiz Alia, his successor. As most of the European Communist regimes collapsed in 1989, the Alia government gradually relaxed the totalitarian restrictions. Diplomatic relations with many nations was restored. The widow of Hoxha was arrested and sentenced to prison for her involvement with her husband's oppressive regime. Alia's reforms eventually led to multiparty elections and the end of the Communist hold on power in Albania. Alia announced his resignation on April 3, 1992, on the eve of the second round of multiparty elections in which the Albanians elected a non-Communist parliament. In August 1993 Alia was placed under house arrest and charged with abuse of power and violation of citizens' civil rights. In a May 1994 trial, he was found guilty and given a nine-year sentence. Religion liberty was restored. In November 1990, the first place of worship ? a mosque ? reopened in Shkodra. In the same month, Father Simon Jubani, who had spent 26 years in prison for refusing to renounce his faith performed an outdoor mass in the capitol city of Tirana before a crowd of 50,000. It would be pleasant to report that, having transitioned out of totalitarianism, Albania fell into happier times. But such was not the case. Poverty and misery still prevailed. With exposure to the previously suppressed outside world, many Albanians were for the first time able to compare their own abject conditions with their more prosperous neighbors. Ironically, in 1991, at the same time that Voldemort was departing Albania "under wraps" with Professor Quirrell, a massive exodus out of the country was taking place. A small number of citizens made their way through the rugged and mountainous regions to escape into Greece or Yugoslavia; but the largest exodus was a flood of refugees who streamed into Italy. Over 200,000 Albanians attempted to gain entry to Italy, so many that Italy closed its borders, and forcibly returned many tens of thousands to their homeland. A 1994 Italian film L'America by director Gianni Amelio provides an unforgettable look at Albania in its disintegrating post-Communist era. And remember all those old clothes you donated to the Salvation Army back in 1978? - well, here's your chance to see where they wound up. You can also see Hoxha's pillboxes in every direction..... http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/- /B0001Y4LD2/qid=1126237827/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/002-0004733-8922441? v=glance&s=dvd And why is an Italian-made film about Albania titled "L'America"? ? You'll have to see the film's poignant conclusion to learn the answer (be assuaged, fellow right-wing neandethals: the significance is not at all anti-American) - CMC From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 04:15:33 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 04:15:33 -0000 Subject: Killing tears the soul apart redux. WAS: Re: Snape's penance? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139831 > Carol wrote: For her, the soul seems to be sufficiently tangible to be sucked > out of a body by a Dementor--through the mouth--which suggests a > concept something like that of the ancient Greek word "psyche" (can't > do Greek letters, sorry), meaning "breath," "spirit," "animating > principle," or maybe "pneuma," meaning "wind" or "breath" but > associated with the Latin "spiritus" in early Christian writings > http://eir.library.utoronto.ca/rpo/display/poem1902.html > > What I'm trying to say is I don't think that the soul in the > Potterverse is a solid object that can be divided into halves and > quarters and so forth like a pie, with each succeeding "half" being > smaller until the portion of soul remaining in Voldie is so small that > it is hardly worth dividing. Saraquel: I wish i'd seen your post before I posted my last one, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139828 as we are thinking along the same lines I think. I took it one little step further and suggested that the soul is in fact the personality. But your post has sparked off more thoughts on the topic. If this is accurate, and I did find quite a lot of canon that fits the model, then splitting your soul is not a physical thing, more like fragmenting your personality. So because personality is not a physical thing, size is not an issue. It doesn't get smaller or larger (as you suggest) IMO, it changes from being whole - meaning consistent and in touch with itself (more akin to holistic) - to split - meaning inconsistent, contradictory and at war with itself. In making a horcrux you could possibly choose which personality traits to syphon off into the horcrux. In fact, if that is the case, I can imagine that the early horcruxes are less deadly than the later ones, as they are likely to contain the softer sides of Voldemort's personality, the parts he despises the most. Tom Riddle in CoS, was much less foul than the later Voldemort - still foul though! Carol wrote: > One more thing that confuses me. Slughorn says that killing (or > murder) splits the soul, yet Dumbledore says that only one wizard > besides LV (almost certainly Grindelwald) has split his soul, meaning > made a Horcrux. So splitting the soul seems to have two different > meanings. Maybe murder *enables* a powerful and evil wizard to split > his damaged soul and create a Horcrux (if he knows the ancient magic > required to do so). Saraquel: Carrying on with my thread above, the personality/soul can become split and still stay in one body. I think that this would still enable you to die and go beyond the veil (I discussed this, and the case of Nearly Headless Nick, in the post I've linked to above.) The real crime, I speculate, which stops you from going beyond the veil, is syphoning off part of your soul into another container and effectively behaving as though it doesn't exist. In fact, JKR says that Voldemort has severed his link completely with his horcrux soul pieces, he has lost the ability to connect with those parts of his personality - hence IMO, he can never be redeemed, or brought back together. Snape however, has in all probability committed murder, if not of DD, probably in his past - one assumes that his soul is probably split, but becuase it is all still in the same body, there is a chance of bringing it back together again - redemption. If you don't like using Snape in this example, use anyone who has committed murder. Saraquel From lebowjessica at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 03:40:36 2005 From: lebowjessica at yahoo.com (lebowjessica) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 03:40:36 -0000 Subject: ESE Slughorn & Horcruxe Thoughts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139832 I have just reread HBP as on my first run I was really disappointed and needed time to get away from it, but enough said on that, I want to run my thoughts by all on where at what I think the Horcurxes are and why I think there is more than meets the eye to Pr. Slughorn this may be to long so I will briefly state some points and finish up in another post. The 7 Horcruxes 1. Diary ? destroyed 2. Ring ? destroyed 3. Locket ? either in 12 Grimmauld Place or sold by MF 4. Cup ? swallowed by Nagini and always close to LV 5. The Mirror of Erised- I think that this is the object that belonged to Ravenclaw, just from its description of its clawlike feet in PS/SS and IMO TR/LV made this a Horcrux unknown to DD as being a possible Ravenclaw object. JK has hinted to us the importance of mirrors, and in HBP refers to lesson learned in the first year PS/SS 6. Harry's scar (I was against this theory in the beginning but after my reread I think that it is most probable and where the GG connection comes in, not because HP is the heir of GG but because of where he and his parents resided) IMO LV's curse rebounded from Harry onto himself therefore he "murdered himself" accidentally transferring a part of his soul and some of his powers to Harry. 7. LV himself. I want to try to explain what now has convinced me that HP's scar is a "accidental Horcrux. Let's look at the wording of the prophecy, "the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal." If this theory is true than both HP & LV contain one 7th of LV's soul "either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives" IMO it refers to the fact that as Harry gets older he will be "taken over" by LV's soul and it will eventually kill him so he needs to force LV's soul out of his body to destroy him. IMO this is the reason that makes HP so special and he is the only one who can kill LV, a big question is why did destroying the Slytherin Ring Horcrux almost kill such a powerful wizard like DD, but when HP destroyed the Diary he was hardly affected at all, it seems to me that both objects would be equally well protected by LV from being destroyed. This can only mean that HP has powers much greater than DD. I think that when Harry destroyed the diary he absorbed the piece of LV's soul that was contained within it, making him posses 2/7 of LV's soul. I think this was the reason behind Harry's strength in forcing the beads of light from LV's wand in GOF, he is more powerful because not only of his power of "love" and good choices but in the fact that he contains more of LV's soul. This certainly underlines the facts of the prophecy that Harry has been handed the power to defeat LV, and IMO by the time they meet in Book 7 Harry will have at least 4 parts to LV's soul and the tools to defeat him. One last thought which I will continue sorry to be so long, I think that LV is aware of that DD knows about his Horcruxes and has destroyed at least one of them. He needs someone on the inside to assure that Draco will go through with his plans to kill DD, to monitor that Snape is sharing all he knows, and lastly watch DD's condition and Horcruxe search. Would you trust an accomplished Occlumens who can just as likely be in Dumbledore's service as your own? I wouldn't and am sure LV doesnot either.There are more compelling reasons to believe this than just because "he's the new guy" ( prior experience should make us suspect the new guys!). Anyway I am finishing up my post on ESE Slughorn and will send it in tomorrow. Love to hear any thoughts. Jessie From iam.kemper at gmail.com Fri Sep 9 05:25:16 2005 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 22:25:16 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Killing tears the soul apart redux. WAS: Re: Snape's penance? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d405090822255507c877@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139833 > Carol wrote: > For her, the soul seems to be sufficiently tangible to be sucked > > out of a body by a Dementor--through the mouth--which suggests a > > concept something like that of the ancient Greek word "psyche" > (can't > > do Greek letters, sorry), meaning "breath," ... > > What I'm trying to say is I don't think that the soul in the > > Potterverse is a solid object that can be divided into halves and > > quarters and so forth like a pie, with each succeeding "half" being > > smaller until the portion of soul remaining in Voldie is so small > that > > it is hardly worth dividing. > > Saraquel: > I wish i'd seen your post before I posted my last one, > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139828 as we are > thinking along the same lines I think. I took it one little step > further and suggested that the soul is in fact the personality. But > your post has sparked off more thoughts on the topic. > > If this is accurate, and I did find quite a lot of canon that fits > the model, then splitting your soul is not a physical thing, more > like fragmenting your personality. So because personality is not a > physical thing, size is not an issue. It doesn't get smaller or > larger (as you suggest) IMO, it changes from being whole - meaning > consistent and in touch with itself (more akin to holistic) - to > split - meaning inconsistent, contradictory and at war with itself. > > In making a horcrux you could possibly choose which personality > traits to syphon off into the horcrux. In fact, if that is the > case, I can imagine that the early horcruxes are less deadly than > the later ones, as they are likely to contain the softer sides of > Voldemort's personality, the parts he despises the most. Tom Riddle > in CoS, was much less foul than the later Voldemort - still foul > though! Kemper now: I agree and disagree. I think a Horcrux is composed of two separate parts of a human: the Psyche and the Soul. I don't think they're interchangeable. What I propose is that the Psyche is a clone/duplicate of the Psyche of the original thereby implementing Carol's 'Multiplying by Dividing', like cell mitosis. The Soul is then 'Decreased by Dividing', like almost everything else. The Body remains constant (unable to divide or multiply). The Psyche has the same experiences as the Original at the time of the Horcrux: as with 15 year old Tom and the Diary. Spiritually, I don't like the idea of the soul dividing and becoming two equal souls... it decreases the soul's importance, uniqueness, beauty. The Soul, IMO, is a Gift from God, the Universe, a Higher Power, the Source, or Whatever. The Psyche is evil by choice/circumstance. So when the Diary and Ring horcruxes are destroyed, it is the Psyche in each that is Destroyed and the Soul from both is Released, returning if not to the Source then as far away from Voldemort as possible. For what it's worth... Kemper [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From msbeadsley at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 05:32:22 2005 From: msbeadsley at yahoo.com (msbeadsley) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 05:32:22 -0000 Subject: Killing tears the soul apart redux. WAS: Re: Snape's penance? In-Reply-To: <700201d405090615457d737c4e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139834 Kemper wrote: "I started wondering if it was even possible to destroy the soul. What is the soul? I don't know, but I'm going to presume, as there's an absence of proof, that the soul is energy. So if it's not possible to destroy energy, and therefore any part of the soul. What happens to the parts of Voldemort's soul that were in the Diary and the Ring? I think those soul parts returned to their energy source. Not Voldemort... THE source: whatever that source may be: God, the Universe, Anything." I thought it was a lovely premise, but something about it bothered me, and I finally came up with it: the dementors. They feed on emotion and they suck out souls. IIRC, they seem to be eager to do both, or either. If sucking out a soul meant only that it was released to return to the Collective Soul (sorry 'bout that, music lovers) and resulted in no payoff for them, why would they bother? Sandy aka msbeadsley P.S. Another other thing dementors do has me dreading writing a filk now that the title has occurred to me: "Foggy Went A Courtin'" From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 06:20:45 2005 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 06:20:45 -0000 Subject: Snape didn't murder the Potters, LV did (was What would Snape have to do....) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139835 > > doddiemoemoe wrote: > > "With this much blood, heartache and sorrow....how can he possibly > > redeem himself?!?!?" "Realization of one's mistake doesn't mean redemption...attempting to right a wrong may lead to redemption...but in my opinion Snape simply> has too many wrongs to right in one book." DeeDee end: > Hickengruendler: > > That's not true. Look at the Apostle Paul. He was redeemed because he regretted what he did and started a new life. His previous sins were not hold against him and he did not have to do one good deed for every sin. I'm still waiting to hear all about "SS" starting a new life...the only regrets we have from snape is what dd assure us he had..yet dd...speaks about remorse....not regrets....different aspects IMHO... DD From djklaugh at comcast.net Fri Sep 9 06:37:15 2005 From: djklaugh at comcast.net (Deb) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 06:37:15 -0000 Subject: The 24 hours and Harry's first Hogwarts dream (Was Re: First chapter of Book 7) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139836 Allie wrote: > I think it would be really, really interesting (and satisfying!!) if > the first chapter of book 7 was an excerpt from the past. What I'd > like to see, specifically, is the night of the attack at Godric's > Hollow (and possibly the following day, the "missing 24 hours.") > > JKR could explain right up front what exactly happened that night, the > role of Severus Snape, if any (insert highly melodramatic "Lily, oh > Lily, what have I done," for those of you who like that ship, I'm still > on the fence about it), when did Hagrid show up, where was Dumbledore, > where was Harry during the missing 24 hours, etc. I think it would be > a VERY nice lead-in to the book that has to tie up so many loose ends! > It doesn't necessarily have to be the first chapter - I guess it could > be done flashback style in a Pensieve mid-book. > > And I wonder - does anyone think that the "missing 24 hours" might be > another oversight on JKR's part, like the number of students at > Hogwarts and fans at the Quidditch World Cup? Or would she have > plotted those early details meticulously? > > Allie Allie, either it was an oversight on JKR's part, or Hagrid did what just about any adult in RL would do if they found an infant in the midst of a destroyed house.... take him to a doctor for a check up. My guess would be that Harry was taken to St Mungo's for a good going over to make sure that he did not have any life threatening effects from what ever happened at Godric's Hollow. Plus getting bathed, fed, changed into clean and dry clothes. We do not know how long after LV became VaporMort that Harry was found, but even if he were found very quickly he'd still be all smudged and grimy from the house being blown up(and maybe had blood streaming down his face from the gash on his forehead) ... and being a young toddler and probably still in the WW equivalent of diapers.... very much in need of a change of clothing as well as TLC. As for what really happened at Godric's Hollow.... I keep coming back to the first dream Harry had at Hogwarts... That first night after the welcome feast (where he has encountered Snape for the first time, he'd had a run in with Draco on the train plus he met Ron, Hermione, Neville, Seamus, Dean, Fred, George, Percy and all the others) (oh yeah and been sorted into Griffindore... does anyone else think the opening lines of the Sorting Hat's song that year might refer to more than just the hat -- "Oh, you might not think I'm pretty, But don't judge on what you see.....") Anyway the dream he has that night is this: (from SS paperback US edition): "He was wearing Professor Quirrell's turban, which kept talking to him, telling him he must transfer to Slytherin at once, because it was his destiny. Harry told the turban he didn't want to be in Slytherin; it got heavier and heavier; he tried to pull it off but it tightened painfully -- and there was Malfoy, laughing at him as he struggled with it -- and then Malfoy turned into the hook-nosed teacher, Snape, whose laugh became high and cold -- there was a burst of green light and Harry woke, sweating and shaking. He rolled over and fell asleep again, and when he woke the next day, he didn't remember the dream at all". The first part of the dream seems to be LV attempting to communicate with Harry ... or is it someone else trying to communicate because LV at that point was residing at the back of Quirrell's head bound up in the turban with no power to perform magic on his own. The turban getting heavy and tightening might be a foreshadowing of Nagini, parseltongue, and/or the Basilisk for the dream action suggests the actions of a large snake that crushes it's prey. And Malfoy laughing... well that does sound like him doesn't it and Harry already knows he does not like Malfoy. For the last part of the dream, it is interesting to me that he associates Snape(and most particularly his hooked nose-a distinguishing facial feature), a high and cold laugh (sounds more like LV to me than Snape), and the burst of green light. Harry, in subsequent books, sees that green light when he remembers his parents and when he remembers fragments of what happened the night they died. He also had had dreams and vague memories of that light long before he learned he was a wizard. That particular burst of green light also seems to be associated with the AK curse. So why would Harry's unconscious mind associate these elements? IMO this last part of this dream represents a partial memory of that night at Godric's Hollow.. triggered by seeing that hooked nose again, by experiencing pain in his scar that might have reminded him on a physical level of the night he received it, and these shards of memory triggered the memory of the "high and cold laugh". And Harry wakens from the dream "sweating and shaking" - afraid. Very young children (before the age of 5 or so)do remember what they experience but it is very difficult, even as they get older, for them to describe these memories because they did not have the vocabulary at the time of the event to conceptualize the experience verbally. The memories of that age are all experiential... what they saw, what they felt(physically and emotionally), what they heard... without any internal commentary or explaination. So was Snape there that night? It seems that might indeed be the case.... But what his role was, what his motives were, and what he did after that remain to be learned. Deb (djklaugh) From juli17 at aol.com Fri Sep 9 06:43:34 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 02:43:34 EDT Subject: Redemptive pattern or Snape in love??? Message-ID: <1b9.1b6af57c.30528916@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139837 Saraquel wrote: > Apparently, a long time ago someone asked her whether there was a > redemptive theme where Snape was concerned, she said she was > stunned and told them to read book 7. Amontillada wrote: This MAY be the one you're thinking about, from a radio interview in October, 1999 (http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/1999/1099-connectiontransc.html): --Interviewer: There's an important kind of redemptive pattern to Snape --JKR: He, um, there's so much I wish I could say to you, and I can't because it would ruin. I promise you, whoever asked that question, can I just say to you that I'm slightly stunned that you've said that and you'll find out why I'm so stunned if you read Book 7. That's all I'm going to say. Julie says: There was an original question posed in this interview snippet-- Interviewer: One of our internet correspondents wonders if Snape is going to fall in love? JKR: (laughs) Who on Earth would want Snape in love with them? That's a very horrible idea. Interviewer: There's an important kind of redemptive pattern to Snape. JKR: He, um, there's so much more I wish I could say to you, and I can't because it would ruin--I promise you, whoever asked that *question*, can I just say to you that I'm slightly stunned that you've said that and you will find out why I'm so stunned if you read Book 7. That's all I'm going to say. Julie, now-- I emphasized the word *question* because I believe in her reply JKR is at this point answering the original question posed. While the interviewer notes a redemptive pattern in Snape, it is the question of whether Snape is going to fall in love to which JKR replies "I'm slightly stunned that you've said that and you'll find out why...if you read Book 7." Book 7 isn't going to reveal a redemptive pattern in Snape, as that pattern has been obvious throughout the books (and the interviewer states it as if it's a fact already in evidence). I think Book 7 is going to reveal a Snape not "falling in love" but a Snape who has *been* in love before, thus JKR's stunned reaction that someone would have considered the Snape in love concept. (And I know JKR said "Who would want Snape in love with them?", which is a valid point. Probably no one, but that doesn't mean Snape couldn't love--or have loved--someone unrequitedly.) Julie (who votes for Lily as love interest, since Narcissa as love interest adds nothing to the plot--unless Draco is a love child ;-) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Fri Sep 9 06:52:32 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 06:52:32 -0000 Subject: Bezoar, DD's words, a request, and thanks In-Reply-To: <1ee2a943b598688edc96aacb649e05c8@comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139838 Katherine wrote: > One strange legend attributes the powers of bezoar to Oriental stags. > When the stags reached a certain age, they were said to eat serpents in > order to regain their youth. But in consuming the serpents, the stags > consumed their venom as well. To detoxify quickly, the stags ran into > a stream while keeping their heads above water. This action >somehow > caused fluid to be distilled from their eyes, and the fluid was then > transformed into a bezoar by the heat of the sun. > I don't know about any of you, but my Pottermania Antennae sprang to > full alert when I read that. > > Stags...serpents...eyes....renewed youth....generation of a new healing > stone through the magic of tears.... Elyse here: I thought this was fabulous! I've always wondered why James' Animagus form was a stag. It had to have a meaning, seeing as JKR invests a lot of symbolism and meaning into the books. (Snape's mysterious Patronus for instance) I mean Sirius was a dog - dogs are devotion personified and this was the essence of Sirius' character. Pettigrew was (literally) a rat, who ratted on his best friends to the dark lord. I havent understood Mcgonagall as a cat, but Im working on it. So why was James a stag? Out of all the animals he could have been, for instance a lion for bravery - would have brought out the regal showman in him alongwith his courage. And is it a coincidence that this is Harry's Patronus? I think not. Help me out here. I think this a profitable train of thought. Maybe whatever stag qualities that James had were what prompted him to save Snape's life? Maybe since Harry has them he will do the same in book 7? Please let me know if there are any JKR quotes on James' Animagus form. And could someone direct me to the best fanfics out there? All the ones Ive read are badly written and seem contrived. Deb wrote: >Oh, I am in agreement with you Elyse! I think you have outlined the >key points of the real Snape very well, IMO. I would also add that >he is a very accomplished healer as well as Potions master, DADA >expert, Occulmens Par excellente, and very accomplished Legilemens >also. He heals Draco after the Sectumsempra and he stabilizes >Katie >Bell after the necklace gets her. Elyse: Thanks!! Glad to know someone agrees! colebiancardi wrote Break down DD's sentence into 2 parts "I believe it to be the greatest regret of his life" <== the telling of the prophecy to Voldemort. "The reason he returned-" <== DD was beginning to tell Harry why Snape truly returned - The reason he returned was because of something or other... Elyse I totally support this line of argument. I dont think Dumbledore was suggesting that Snape came over to the good side due to remorse over the Potters' death. It sounds way too simple to me and while Dumbledore may make mistakes, he is no fool, and I doubt this story wouldve held water with him. If it did, then he really was as senile as the Daily Prophet was saying all along From djklaugh at comcast.net Fri Sep 9 06:54:38 2005 From: djklaugh at comcast.net (Deb) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 06:54:38 -0000 Subject: Killing tears the soul apart redux. WAS: Re: Snape's penance? In-Reply-To: <700201d405090822255507c877@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139839 > Carol wrote: > For her, the soul seems to be sufficiently tangible to be sucked > out of a body by a Dementor--through the mouth--which suggests a > concept something like that of the ancient Greek word "psyche" > (can't > do Greek letters, sorry), meaning "breath," ... > What I'm trying to say is I don't think that the soul in the > Potterverse is a solid object that can be divided into halves and > quarters and so forth like a pie, with each succeeding "half" being > smaller until the portion of soul remaining in Voldie is so small > that > it is hardly worth dividing. > > Saraquel: > I wish i'd seen your post before I posted my last one, > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139828 as we are > thinking along the same lines I think. I took it one little step > further and suggested that the soul is in fact the personality. But > your post has sparked off more thoughts on the topic. > > If this is accurate, and I did find quite a lot of canon that fits > the model, then splitting your soul is not a physical thing, more > like fragmenting your personality. So because personality is not a > physical thing, size is not an issue. It doesn't get smaller or > larger (as you suggest) IMO, it changes from being whole - meaning > consistent and in touch with itself (more akin to holistic) - to > split - meaning inconsistent, contradictory and at war with itself. > In making a horcrux you could possibly choose which personality > traits to syphon off into the horcrux. In fact, if that is the > case, I can imagine that the early horcruxes are less deadly than > the later ones, as they are likely to contain the softer sides of > Voldemort's personality, the parts he despises the most. Tom Riddle > in CoS, was much less foul than the later Voldemort - still foul > though! > Kemper now: > I agree and disagree. I think a Horcrux is composed of two separate parts of > a human: the Psyche and the Soul. I don't think they're interchangeable. > What I propose is that the Psyche is a clone/duplicate of the Psyche of the > original thereby implementing Carol's 'Multiplying by Dividing', like cell > mitosis. The Soul is then 'Decreased by Dividing', like almost everything > else. The Body remains constant (unable to divide or multiply). > The Psyche has the same experiences as the Original at the time of the > Horcrux: as with 15 year old Tom and the Diary. > Spiritually, I don't like the idea of the soul dividing and becoming two > equal souls... it decreases the soul's importance, uniqueness, beauty. The > Soul, IMO, is a Gift from God, the Universe, a Higher Power, the Source, or > Whatever. The Psyche is evil by choice/circumstance. > So when the Diary and Ring horcruxes are destroyed, it is the Psyche in > each that is Destroyed and the Soul from both is Released, returning if not > to the Source then as far away from Voldemort as possible. > For what it's worth... > Kemper Deb adds: Bravo Kemper! I think that does explain very well this quite knotty situation. I would add that IMO Tom Riddle created the diary when he was 15/16 (to preserve his 15/16yo self and to attempt to touch the future and cause the CoS to be opened again) but LV made it into a Horcrux years later. I personally don't think he learned how to make Horcruxes(and I also think that there is a quite intricate and evil ritual that must be performed in order to make them) ... or at least did not start making them if the "he learned how to make them from Grendwald" folks are to be believed.... until after he stole the locket and the cup and left Borgins and Burke. Canon tells us that LV wandered and learned Dark Arts for over 15 years before he came back, organized the DEs and started trying to take over the WW. Deb (djklaugh)- From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 9 09:56:11 2005 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 05:56:11 -0400 Subject: Two replies - Dumbledores hand and Arnold the Pygmy Puff Message-ID: <005901c5b524$b60024c0$1ec2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 139840 M.Clifford: > At the moment, I'm thinking that since it comes from Fred and Georges > store it definitely is *not* what it first appears, the Pygmy puffs > might not be miniature puffskeins at all but instead another of one of > the twins awful pranks, some hideous rare creature transfigured into a > puff but due to revert to its alter form when you least expect it. > Basically, this time, I think, it *is* the Twins setting off the > Sneakoscope. :D Allie >>Giving a dangerous transfigured beast to their own sister? Hmm... well, there are some out there who think that Fred is ESE! but I'm not convinced yet. CathyD: Nor am I, Allie. Remember all the posts on the list about F&G time travelling to find out the final score for the Quidditch World Cup and that's why they placed the bet they did? JKR certainly squashed that idea. I'd just like to ask if no one on this list has a cat? My cats would have been over the moon with Arnold. A small puffy ball of fluff that emits a high pitched squeak and likes to be batted arround. A long string-like tongue slipping across the floor. Oh my, I can see the fun now! Also, when Harry was banned from Quidditch after the fight with Malfoy, he still had the Snitch in his hand and let it free in the Gryffindor common room. Crookshanks followed it around the room too, jumping from chair to chair. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 10:13:13 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 10:13:13 -0000 Subject: Eavesdropper in Hog's Head/someone in the Weasley-shed? In-Reply-To: <43207E90.2000208@snet.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139841 Gonca : > Also, I find it very interesting that, in HPB, Harry seems to see quite > a few things in his "mind's eye" -- Dumbledore had > an other purpose when he was showing scenes from LV's life to HP and not > just telling him verbally. I don't know if I'm pushing this idea too far > but; LV is a good legimens, if LV enters HP's mind and watches his own > memories... Finwitch: Well, Dumbledore is MORE than just showing them. He's having Harry to see, hear and experience the whole thing himself. That is a much more effective method of learning than any words can be. In addition, he's giving Harry an *objective* view on things, not his own interpretation where ever he can. And, you know -- I'd say that if Voldemort tries to Legilimens on 'what Harry learned with Dumbledore', believing like Ron&Hermione&Harry before the actual lessons that it's about some spells etc. I think it would be most *confusing* for Voldemort to see nothing but his OWN memories! He might even think his Legilimency failed or something... But I don't think Dumbledore was counting on that. No, it was all about 'knowing your enemy'. But I would say that all book, Dumbledore was being very careful about what he said and did around Harry. He didn't, for example, give Harry any information that Voldemort did not already know, or be able to guess. (aside from showing Trelawney- prediction at the end of OOP). As for *spiders*... What about all the spiders in Harry's cupboard? And Dumbledore saying he's kept a closer eye on Harry than he thinks? He never said *how* he did that... spiders running away from the basilisk at Hogwarts, spiders in Weasley Cupboard... spider on Dumbledore's hat. Perhaps it's trough these spiders he has kept an eye on things... maybe there was a spider-spy in the shed, who'd tell Voldemort that 'only ones who know are Dumbledore and Harry..' The Weasley shed IS getting quite crowded here... let's see -- Snape was at Spinner's End - possibly he had a spider spying there, but wasn't there in person. Aberforth might have been, as spider-animagus, invisibly (Albus can be invisible without a cloak - the ability could run in the family, as well as Legilimency) - or disguised as a broom or something. You know, like Slughorn pretended to be a chair? Finwitch From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 9 10:48:02 2005 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 06:48:02 -0400 Subject: Harry's study habits Message-ID: <005d01c5b52b$f4415270$1ec2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 139842 CathyD: < puts very little effort into his homework, pays little attention in > class, accomplishes learning only at dire need (Patronus, throwing > off the Imperius curse, or when cramming, with Hermione's notes, for > exams), >> hekatesheadband I always hate to disagree with an extremely thorough analyst... then again, there are so many on all sides of every issue that it's quite inevitable. But I do feel compelled to note the text does support a reading of Harry as fairly intelligent and reasonably diligent. >I don't have my books at hand, but several times in each book, Rowling sets the stage with words to the effect of "Harry had been poring over his Potions essay for an hour when..." or "Harry felt Crookshanks' tail brush against his knee as he looked through his Transfiguration notes" or "They found an empty classroom where they could practise such-and-such a charm" or "Harry was satisfied that he had managed to get three rolls of parchment for Binns' essay." CathyD: In a quick (very quick) glance through the six books yesterday, I found 23 instances of Harry goofing off in class, not paying attention in class, copying homework, making up stuff for Divination or Hermione doing his homework. I won't bore you with all of the quotes. And these were instances of only Harry not paying attention, not Harry and Ron, or Harry and Hermione, or instances where it seemed the whole class was goofing around (Charms comes to mind). The only one of your references I found was the finding of an empty classroom which was when Harry was practicing a Summoning Charm, with Hermione, for the First Task of the TWT. Dire need, as I said in my earlier post on this subject. Snape gave the DADA class a two rolls of parchment assignment on werewolves, but Hermione was the only one to complete it, as far as we know, although the assignment was given on Friday and due in on Monday. What would the other nine Gryffindors have used as an excuse if Lupin hadn't been in class on Monday? I think I found five or six instances of Harry doing his own homework or reasearch in the library himself. One quote I do want to put in because it talks about bezoars again...I wonder if JKR forgot she did it (it certainly was hard to find!). "[Harry] found it hard to concentrate in Snape's Antidote test, and consequently forgot to add the key ingredient - a bezoar - meaning that he received bottom marks. He didn't care though; he was too busy screwing up his courage for what he was about to do." (GoF pg 345 Can Ed) Harry initially heard about bezoars in his first Potions class. Easy enough to forget about between then and sixth-year Potions if they hadn't studied Antidotes throughout the first part of fourth-year (until Christmas), and used them, obviously, to make Antidotes. Only two years since he studied Antidotes and still doesn't recall bezoars? Obviously not a complete study on the subject, but IMO, Harry is not diligent in his studies. I'm sure he has great potential, I'm sure he's not defective mentally, but he certainly puts very little thought or effort into his studies on a routine basis. One of the things about Harry that has really bothered me for some time is how he doesn't even know the names of fellow students. I didn't expect a first year to know all the names of all the kids in school, or even of all the kids in his house. I don't expect, a now sixth-year, to know the names of the kids in first year. However, after Potions classes (either single or double periods), flying lessons, and Care of Magical Creatures with the Slytherins - 10 kids in addition to the 10 Gryffindors - Hermione has to tell Harry that the 'weedy looking boy' with Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle in the library, is Theodore Nott? Four and a half years of classes with ten kids, and he doesn't know all their names? (Argue, as some will, that there are more than 40 kids in Harry's year, JKR has specifically said otherwise. That she created the 40 kids for Harry's year and that is what there is: 40.) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From vmonte at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 10:48:54 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 10:48:54 -0000 Subject: The 24 hours and Harry's first Hogwarts dream (Was Re: First chapter of Book 7) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139843 Deb (djklaugh)wrote: "He was wearing Professor Quirrell's turban, which kept talking to him, telling him he must transfer to Slytherin at once, because it was his destiny. Harry told the turban he didn't want to be in Slytherin; it got heavier and heavier; he tried to pull it off but it tightened painfully -- and there was Malfoy, laughing at him as he struggled with it -- and then Malfoy turned into the hook-nosed teacher, Snape, whose laugh became high and cold -- there was a burst of green light and Harry woke, sweating and shaking. He rolled over and fell asleep again, and when he woke the next day, he didn't remember the dream at all". The first part of the dream seems to be LV attempting to communicate with Harry ... or is it someone else trying to communicate because LV at that point was residing at the back of Quirrell's head bound up in the turban with no power to perform magic on his own. The turban getting heavy and tightening might be a foreshadowing of Nagini, parseltongue, and/or the Basilisk for the dream action suggests the actions of a large snake that crushes it's prey. And Malfoy laughing... For the last part of the dream, it is interesting to me that he associates Snape(and most particularly his hooked nose-a distinguishing facial feature), a high and cold laugh (sounds more like LV to me than Snape), and the burst of green light... So was Snape there that night? It seems that might indeed be the case... But what his role was, what his motives were, and what he did after that remain to be learned. vmonte: It's also interesting that first Malfoy and then Snape is wearing the turbin. We know that Draco was not at Godric's Hollow that night because he was a baby himself, so perhaps Harry's unconscious sees a similarity in D & S's personality right away. The chapter in the Philosopher's Stone where we finally meet Voldemort face to face is called: The Two Faced Man. Two faced also means: marked by deliberate deceptiveness especially by pretending one set of feelings and acting under the influence of another; "she was a deceitful scheming little thing"- Israel Zangwill; "a double-dealing double agent"; "a double-faced infernal traitor and schemer"- W.M.Thackeray Vivian From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 11:10:01 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 11:10:01 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's upcoming letter (and a note about "lawn order") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139844 Jessica: > > Perhaps he left something with Aberforth? Would anyone (Harry included) even think of looking for it in the Hog's Head? > > I agree with both you and Kizor on this one - there's got to be some way of getting a whole bunch of information from Dumbledore to Harry in Book 7. Perhaps there's something in Dumbledore's last letter to Petunia? Finwitch: I bet there's a lot with Petunia for Harry to discover. And I'd say Albus DID leave something to Harry. Say Harry gets a letter from Albus - delivered via an Owl Aberforth takes to post office. Aberforth would *never* read other people's letters, be they dead or alive, you know... In addition, if Albus did NOT leave a will, all his possessions would go to Aberforth... hmm - Albus told McGonagall about wishing to be laid to rest on Hogwarts grounds... and she says: 'if the Ministry finds it appropriate?' Then, all the staff present votes for it, the question is, why did McGonagall bring up the Ministry at all? You know, I think it entirely possible that Albus left a punch of letters (and a will?) to his brother to be delivered in case he died. And Aberforth delivers each of them in person. That would get Harry to meet him properly. And er -- why should Albus send Harry some instructions of spells/loads of letters etc. when Aberforth can provide Harry with it all in a much more trustworthy manner? Finwitch From vmonte at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 11:14:32 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 11:14:32 -0000 Subject: Rulebreaking (was OFH!Snape scenario) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139845 Marianne wrote: Marianne: Which brings up another question. If the rules are laid out, and one follows the rules, why then should one expect extra attention, praise, rewards, pats on the head, or what have you for following them? Following the rules is what is expected. Doing so should not lead to higher recognition from the powers that be, whether we're talking about the headmaster of a school or whatever version of a god figure one wishes to follow. vmonte: Hermione is also someone who is fixated with rules. It's funny that she is very righteous towards others when she believes that they are doing wrong/breaking the rules, but then she also breaks the same rules herself. For example: She gets angry at Harry when she believes that he gave Ron the Felis Felix before the quidditch game, but has no qualms about helping Ron cheat to get into the team in the first place. It's funny how Harry never actually cheated--but Hermione did. I have a feeling that Hermione will forget about the "rules" in the next book and do something that no one believes can be done. Vivian Who loves people that think outside the box. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Sep 9 11:29:20 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 11:29:20 -0000 Subject: either must die at the hand of the other, Contradiction or Clue? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139846 Saraquel and Valky, I refer now to this post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139832 'ESE Slughorn and Horcruxe Thoughts' Jessie suggests at one point that the soul-part contained in the horcrux goes into the person destroying it. She (he?) also suggests that Harry was made into an accidental horcrux at the destruction of VoldyI, embuing him with 1/7 of Voldysoul, leaving Voldy himself with 1/7 of his own soul. Aside from the deliberate making of a horcrux, which I imagine would be as dark and complicated a ritual as the GoF graveyard scene, I can't discount the possibility that a 'horcrux' (got to use quotemarks, if it isn't deliberate, can it use that name?) *can* be created accidentally. While most of what we have in the lines of technical and academic advances comes from intense study and experimentation, some things were stumbled upon and worked. I can imagine some of the magic in the Potterverse also springing from observation of accidental phenomena. *Pure* speculation here! But, could the origins of the horcrux ritual have come from observing an accidental 'horcrux' being formed? And no, I don't know how this could be observed, any more than I can imagine how any wizard, no matter how Dark, coming up with the idea to entomb a soul piece without observing it being done in nature, so to speak. Headdesk moment, definitely. So I'll pretend that some academic in a shroud is working on that part of it in an ivory tower someplace. Jessie goes on to discuss the difference between Harry destroying the diary without much trouble overall, vs. Dumbledore's withered arm. I probably should say that, while Harry had to fight off a Basilisk, and almost died from the venom, his body remained intact; no magical explosion, no withering of parts, and other than the invasion of the poison which was healed by Fawkes, he was able to move on in a normal state. Opposed to Dumbledore, who has clearly and forver lost the use of his one hand. Someone else has suggested that Harry will have less trouble than Dumbledore did, based on the same two pieces of evidence, farther back in the HBP discussion, concluding that Harry is the most suitable person to go in search of the horcruxes. Makes sense to me, also based on the evidence. Jessie goes on to suggest that when the diary is destroyed, the Voldysoul inside of it goes into Harry, giving him 2/7 of Voldemort's soul, while Voldemort still only has one. This would make sense from a utilitarian standpoint. The person with a part of the same soul may destroy a horcrux without problem (recognition of the part in the horcrux?), keeping other comers out, while at the same time, the soul fragment is released and goes back into the nearest body at hand. Dumbledore says that Voldemort won't know when a horcrux is destroyed. He may not even know that the piece of soul will transfer to the nearest warm body, but then, he might. That could be part of his anger with Lucius for beginning the chain of events in CoS. When did he know that the diary horcrux was destroyed? Before or after GoF: Creepshow in the Graveyard? *IF* the soul fragment goes into whatever's nearest (not necessarily warm, just living), could it be akin to the Voldysoul that lived in the animals of Albania if not reunited with its own fellow soulpart? Aware, but weakened, yet sapping the strength of its host? The only snag to this is the idea of a Harry!Horcrux. Though, the scar, if a horcrux instead of Harry himself, placed in a liminal setting (the skin, barrier between the inner and outer person) could both protect the body Harry from the sapping of strength, as well as expose it in a controlled setting to the soul fragment, creating some sort of link at the same time. Very speculative now, not fully formed. And, I cringe to get into the whole 'what is and isn't a horcrux' debate as well. I really do cringe! Then, Dumbledore. We know that Voldysoul can occupy, while killing, a living host. And I can't doubt that this reflects the fate of any loosed piece of soul, since it's canon. We just have no canon to support or refute what might happen to that body, aside from accelerated death. We don't know what physical damage is done to the host. We also don't know how soon that host body dies after insertion of the soul. *IF* the released soul fragment occupies the nearest living body, then Dumbledore absorbed the part of Voldysoul in the ring. If there is a physical evidence of that, then that would be his blackened hand. (Someone else already mentioned that possibility much earlier, IIRC) Quirrel. How long would he have survived his 'possession'? And was it the same thing as outright absorbing the soul fragment? Or did Vapour!Mort merely piggyback on him? And, did drinking unicorn blood help sustain the host body through the year? Would he have died sooner if he didn't have it? Quirrel, as far as we know, didn't have a dead limb marking him as a soul-host. But he did have Voldyface sticking out of the back of his head. And, we know Quirrel agreed, either out of dedication or fear, to be the host. So could that have affected the way his function was revealed? Did Voldemort have more leeway with how he chose to manifest due to the willingness of his host? We've heard from two pieces of Voldysoul, the one that is reconstituted as Voldemort, and TR in CoS. So each piece seems to have sentience, and memories from the time of its creation. Could a piece of Voldysoul trapped in the body of a powerful and resisting wizard begin to destroy it on the cellular level (I think it would be cellular?), evidence DD's hand? Could it only *manifest* its presence on the portion of body corresponding with its part (1/7 of a soul, 1/7 of the body *obviously* destroyed)? And (cringe!) if the scar is a horcrux, does that mean that Baby Harry got *less* of a soul fragment than Dumbledore? Given that the soul goes into the nearest living body? Yow. Am I totally subverting this thread? Voldysoul had no magic except the power to possess. Yet, that is a power, and a malign power at that. It kills its host. Still, I'm interested in following the idea that the soul fragment goes into the nearest living body (and only a fragment, so a whole soul couldn't do this, IMO, though I'm willing to explore and change my opinion on that score). Related, TRsoul seems to have gone back and forth between the diary and Ginny. Destroying the diary left the soul with noplace to go (except the nearest living body, which appears to have been Harry at that point, if that is true of soul fragments). That also stopped the drain of Ginny's spirit/life essence. Did Ginny have any physical evidence of possession, or did the transitory nature of her possession preclude that? And, still, what about Voldemort's spirit? I do think it got blown away at GH. Maybe it's the spirit, and not the soul, that rejoins the 'ether'? I'm getting very lost in the swamp here. But the post I menitoned above, got me thinking about this discussion from a slightly different angle. As I said, this isn't fully formed, certainly not fleshed out. But, something to consider, IMO. What do you think? Ceridwen. From vmonte at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 11:47:13 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 11:47:13 -0000 Subject: Harry's study habits In-Reply-To: <005d01c5b52b$f4415270$1ec2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139847 CathyD: In a quick (very quick) glance through the six books yesterday, I found 23 instances of Harry goofing off in class, not paying attention in class, copying homework, making up stuff for Divination or Hermione doing his homework. I won't bore you with all of the quotes. And these were instances of only Harry not paying attention, not Harry and Ron, or Harry and Hermione, or instances where it seemed the whole class was goofing around (Charms comes to mind). The only one of your references I found was the finding of an empty classroom which was when Harry was practicing a Summoning Charm, with Hermione, for the First Task of the TWT. Dire need, as I said in my earlier post on this subject. vmonte responds: I was the same way when I was in high school. I did well in the classes that interested me and I did just enough to get by in the classes that I thought were boring--math, science. (Except I did get an A once in science, the year we had a very cute teacher substituting; which goes to show that I probably would have done really well the other years if I had forced myself to pay attention like that one year.) Anyway, I have a feeling that Harry is going to apply himself in the next book. Vivian From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Sep 9 05:26:20 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 05:26:20 -0000 Subject: Depth? Things to take on their face value (Was: Sirius' loyalty) In-Reply-To: <009d01c5b4dd$b0d0e760$423a79a5@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139848 > houyhnhnm: > > What would have been the right choice, then? > > > > Sherry now: > > What about having a family like the Weasleys raise him? Or perhaps having > bothered to find out the truth about Sirius and then letting Harry live with > his true guardian, the one his parents chose for him? > Oh, Dumbledore had any number of options that were better than what he did. For instance he might have put Harry into hiding with himself as secret keeper - it's certainly sufficed to keep Grimmauld Place secure even in the face of Voldemort's return, so it's hard to imagine it would not have worked against the likes of Lucius Malfoy. Even better, he could have put out the story that Harry had been killed along with his parents then had the boy brought up under another name -- out of the country, if necessary. And no, I don't think the shock of learning his true identity, etc., would have been worse than what happened to him. If nothing else, he might have dropped by the Dursleys for regular visits -- and no, I don't think the most powerful wizard in the world would be helpless in the face of a couple of muggles. If he did not want to resort to coercion to secure appropriate treatment for Harry, bribery was always an option. And no, I don't think that course of action would have been morally incorrect. If he could not have done so because the Dursleys would have kicked Harry out, then we are back to the fact that he should not of placed him there to start with. Actually, I think this is one of those things JKR unfortunately just didn't think through. The Dursleys worked okay as the evil stepsisters in a fairy tale. When JKR groped for realism they suddenly became problematic in the extreme, and JKR found herself at sea with an "epitome of goodness" that apparently tacitly approved of child abuse, or at least turned a blind eye to it as a result of some kind of cold-hearted calculation. This particularly shows up with regard to the disconnect between OOTP and HBP. Much of HBP consists of a scramble back from the last part of OOTP and the implications thereof. With regard to this issue, JKR seems to be saying, "Whoops, that sent a message I didn't intend. Let's pretend that didn't happen. Let's pretend Dumbledore didn't make that 'I knew you would suffer' speech and we'll have him make this one about'I hoped you would raise him as a son,' instead." Along with that several other things have gone into the void. I doubt we'll ever hear more about Mrs. Figg and her reports, or about Dumbledore's plan, both will likely disappear quietly along with the questions they raise. Better a loving but disconnected bungler who wrongly trusted the Dursleys than a manipulative and uncaring accessory to abuse who had detailed reports and yet took no action for whatever reason. Of course you can come up with scenarios to weave the end of OOTP and the beginning of HBP together. But all of them make Dumbledore's speech at Privet Drive at least disingenuous if not down-right hypocritical. That's no problem if you believe in Puppetmaster! Dumbledore, but Puppetmaster!Dumbledore is largely a creature of the fandom, and I just don't sense that is where JKR is going or what she intended. So, at the moment, barring further revelations I don't think we'll get, I think she is contented to let DD rest of a bed of well-meaning mistakes. Lupinlore From lolita_ns at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 10:16:55 2005 From: lolita_ns at yahoo.com (lolita_ns) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 10:16:55 -0000 Subject: Voldemort in Albania WAS: Re: Horcrux Issue In-Reply-To: <20050909024455.51972.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139849 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Juli wrote: > > hmm good question. What is *So* important about Albania that Voldie chose to hide there, why couldn't it be any other country? what's so special about Albania? Maybe Jo just likes the way it sounds Lolita: Albania is the least developed country in Europe. It's sparsely populated, thus a great hideout for Vapormort. It's also a country where criminal flourishes - 90% of drugs put in circulation in Europe enter Europe through Albania, and there are also terrorist organizations there. So, I would say that LV would feel at home there. + No one would look for him there - I mean the MoM, not DEs. (none of the DEs rushed to find him in the first place - with the exemption of deranged followers - Bellatrix & co, who were too busy trying to pry the information out of the Longbottoms to actually put their minds to work and try to figure out where LV might have escaped to by themselves) Juli: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Albania known for its vampires? Doesn't Transylvania (where Dracula comes from) is in Albania? Maybe there're quite a few Dark Wizards there so he would feel *at home* ther? I dunno. Just thinking of possible explanations. Lolita: Yes, you're wrong. Transylvania is in Romania, whereas Albania is in the Balkans, and shares borders with Serbia&Montenegro and Greece. My guess is that both JKR and LV chose Albania as the least likely place where any government officials would bother to find LV. (I mean, the Scandinavian countries are sparsely populated, but they're also highly developed, so my guess is that their MoMs would take drastic precausions in order to captivate LV - or what was left of him - , whereas Albanian MoM probably wouldn't. Just think of terrorists on Interpol lists who generally hide in undeveloped countries because they believe that the police there are not equiped or good enough to find them, and the governments are corrupt enough to shield them). Or JKR *did* just like the sound of it. It wouldn't be a first (I mean, why on earth would dragons be bred in Romania, when dragons are usually associated with Celtic cultures, and Romania with vampires?) Cheers, Lolita. From lebowjessica at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 04:52:23 2005 From: lebowjessica at yahoo.com (lebowjessica) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 04:52:23 -0000 Subject: ESE Slughorn Continued Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139850 This is Jessie after my reread of HBP and why I think Slughorn is ESE. continued from my post on Horcruxes. IMO LV does not have confidence in Malfoy being able to kill DD, so he needs someone inside of Hogwarts to keep tabs on both Malfoy and Snape, what better person than Slughorn? I am not sure if Slughorn is willing or an unwilling spy for LV, but I am sure that he is guiding and bullying Malfoy simultaneously watching that Snape is sharing all he knows, and monitoring DD to his physical condition and his quest for the Horcruxes. Snape has told the Bellatrix and Narcissa that Dumbledore is wounded and vulnerable; HBP p 31). Chapter 15 HBP pages 323-324 Malfoy tells Snape that "I've got all the assistance I need, thanks, I'm not alone!" and, when Snape asks him, "if you are placing your reliance in assistants like Crabbe and Goyle ?", Malfoy responds, "They're not the only ones, I've got other people on my side, better people!" Who else besides Greyback could Malfoy mean, no one but Slughorn IMO. If we have learned anything from JKR's books it is the fact that the new guy is never what he seems to be, and this is very evident in Slughorn. 1. Horace Slughorn was the head of Slytherin house for many years - and an admirer and associate of Lord Voldemort, he also is among the few that know that Tom Riddle is LV and the heir of Slytherin. (2) When DD asks him if his sofa disguise ruse before he and Harry arrives was for him or the DE's , Slughorn "demands" him to explain what that crowd would want with him. Dumbledore explains, "I imagine they would want you to turn your considerable talents to coercion, torture, and murder" and asks him if he is not being recruited. Slughorn says he has been in hiding to avoid them. (chapter 4,HBP p 68);) IMO Slughorn is not insulted when DD in jest or seriously suggests that the Death Eaters would think of him as a natural ally, he never does answer the question if he is hiding from DD, as he seems to be. DE visit , was a ploy to win Dumbledore's confidence that he had not yet been recruited by the bad guys yet. Slughorn recognizes the ring on DD's hand on this visit because DD makes a point of waving it in his face, Harry notices the ring on DD's good hand for the first time as well .Slughorn's eyes lingered for a moment on the ring too, and Harry saw a tiny frown momentarily crease his wide forehead" (HBP, pp 67-68). Tom Riddle was wearing this ring when he asked Slughorn about the Horcruxes. DD does not wear the ring again in the book so it might be assumed he did so here to impress Slughorn with his "collection" or knowledge of Horcruxes; I also forgot Slughorn's failure to conjure the Dark Mark, the fact that he knows how to do makes him a very likely a DE. 3). Slughorn is a collector like LV but of people with influential contacts, he only values people whose contacts,and skills that can help him advace and gain power. 4). Slughorn gives Harry the HBP's text book Harry is the big prize Slughorn wants for his collection, the bait DD uses to bring Slughorn out of retirement. Slughorn sets Harry up for great success in class by giving Harry a book that has all the answers to every question and potion in advance. The book is like the invites to the Slug Club, he wants the Harry the "chosen one" because he thinks that Harry will help him some day when he becomes powerful and or he is working for LV and is trying assure his own life. 5).When Harry asks him about the Horcruxes, Slughorn shifts from jovialness and friendship to "shocked, terrified" and in a cold sweat yelling at Harry about DD and the Horcrux memory (HBP p 379- 380). "Slug Club" parties cease, if Slughorn later regains his composure and friendliness with Harry. Does Slughorn realize his vulnerability at this time and wonder at how he can get on Voldemort's good side? Or is he terrified that DD is sending him a signal that he knows he is working for LV? 6). He is definately helping Malfoy, who else is brewing all that Poly Juice Potion? 7).Slughorn's refusal to give the memory to DD or Harry before he seemingly drinking himself into a stupor after Aragog's burial has to count againsWe know that he is terrified by the idea of Harry or Dumbledore learning about the Horcrux memory. He is also an accomplished drinker. Does he give Harry the Horcrux memory, then, because he suddenly has completely lost his bearings under the influence of wine or because the Dark Lord has told him he must and this is a golden opportunity? This is a wizard that Dumbledore describes as "an extremely able wizard," "accomplished in Occlumency," and one who carries antidotes to potions lest he be coerced into spilling his memories (chapter 17 HBP p 372.) His gathering of "greens" and dusk and milking of Arragog also makes me suspcious that it is he who makes the green "liquid boggart" that DD drinks from the Pensive in the Cave. 8) Slughorn's reaction to being told that DD has been murdered by Snape is not one of grief it is more of an embarassment that the other professors will associate him poorly with Snape If he is not a Death Eater from the get go, Horace Slughorn at least spends the better part of the year trying to play both sides of the field, I think, and rather aggressively. He makes contact with the DE's through Malfoy, Bellatrix nephew, and secretly helps him in his efforts to kill DD (perhaps by placing the Imperius curse on Rosmerta, if he does seem genuinely shocked that Malfoy has doped his gift). He tries, at the same time, to recruit or otherwise win favor with Harry in case DD is successful in collecting and destroying LV's Horcruxes. Being power hungry and a coward Slughorn contacts LV, and not only helps Malfoy with the Vanishing Cabinet Repair job , but also IMO sends DD to the cave to drink the poisoned liquid. We know that DD learns about the cave on the day the cabinets are repaired and Malfoy can call in his DE friends. Coincidence I don't think so. We know that an accomplished wizard has switched out the Horcruxe in the basin and left a faux Horcrux with a note seemingly from Regulus Black as well as an impenetrable emerald green potion that DD "assumes" he must drink. If Regulus Black left the faux LV Horcrux necklace in its original spot (not the cave I am not sure yet,) and Slughorn or LV found it, Slughorn could have created with LV s help the trap in the Cave, to include the poisoned potion. Slughorn would only then have to fix the Vanishing Cabinet and send DD to the Cave (and tell him to be sure to bring a crystal goblet) on the night of the DE invasion of Hogwarts. The trap would then be sprung. Sorry for the long post love to hear your comments. Jessie From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Fri Sep 9 12:27:24 2005 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 13:27:24 +0100 (BST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] ESE Slughorn Continued In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050909122724.36740.qmail@web86204.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139851 --- lebowjessica wrote: > > 6). He is definately helping Malfoy, who else is > brewing all that > Poly Juice Potion? Malfoy's got an 'O' in his OWLs, I'm sure he can manage Polyjuice. Irene, not a fan of Malfoy ___________________________________________________________ How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 12:31:04 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 12:31:04 -0000 Subject: What is magical power /of age/life-debt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139852 > Saraquel: > > Magical powers > It would appear that one is born with them, but they are not > necessarily inherited. Although I remember a post some while back > about gene pools explaining how it could be an inherited trait if it > was a recessive gene, which would mean it wouldn't always appear. > JKR has said (correct me if I'm wrong) that someone would *discover* > magical abilities late in life ? indicating that they are latent in > that person. -- > There is also the fact that magical powers diminish when there is > depression ? Tonks and Merope. Finwitch: And not only them: just about everyone in Azkaban has experienced that as well. Sirius, too, was *weakened* by Dementor-brought depression. However, with Sirius we can learn more of just *why* depression appears to diminish magical power: It's not depression per se, but... Sirius' comment of how he could KEEP his power: 'I was innocent. That was not a happy thought so the Dementor's could not take it away, but it helped me remember who I was...' - This enabled him to take the dog-form which confuded Dementors who can't sense an animal's emotions...' And how the he regained his strength, with the knowledge of Peter being at Hogwarts... he became *obsessed* and this obsession - again, not a happy thought - but it gave him strength... Quite apparently emotions ARE important. And so is the sense of self- and what does Dumbledore tell as about the power of a whole, untainted soul... I also think that coming of age among wizards is a magical, not a cultural thing. As an ageline is not fooled by Aging Potion and keeps anyone under seventeen from crossing it; the ancient magic of Harry's blood-protection only holds until Harry is of age: seventeen. Besides, if I recall my history, age of adulthood was 21 (or at least, MORE than 18) not less. In addition, I think that although one could claim a moral life-debt whenever a life is saved - it is well possible that a wizard under 17 whose life is saved, is not *magically* bond. You know, no one said anything about Harry saving Ginny creating a life-debt-bond. Or Sirius dragging Lupin away from Ron creating such a bond... and some days appear to be more magical than others... However, Since Pettigrew IS of age, he IS magically bonded. And so, I think, was Snape, just turned 17 I expect, when the whole Were-wolf incident happened. (Meaning it took place on their 6th year). This also makes it interesting note on Harry saving Ron's life with the bezoar on Ron's coming-of-age day. Hermione would know of that I guess - and that's why she's so timid again. She's been of age most of her 6th year, after all... it *could* be something she learned in Arithmancy, I suppose. Also, I think it's the magic of the wizard being saved that creates the bond - and it MUST be an adult's magic... That way it may even come to be if one doing the saving was a Muggle... Hmm.. Harry's FF-potion saved Ron&Hermione - both of age, and coming to be with Harry at the Dursleys and offer to follow him where-ever he goes... You know, I think Hermione's offer, at least, is partly due to her owing Harry a life-debt... Finwitch From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Sep 9 12:41:40 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 12:41:40 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's decisions (was:Re: Depth? Things to take on their face value...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139853 > Sherry: > Don't get me wrong, I love Dumbledore. But he is a far more > interesting character with flaws, one who makes huge mistakes, > than as the epitome of perfection and always being right. > > > Betsy Hp: > > I think in this case, Dumbledore was like Churchill in WWII, > > They did the best they could with what they had, and IMO, they > > made the right call. One I'm grateful I've never had to make. > > But the very fact they had to live with their decision and I'm > > sure hated that they had to make that sort of choice means that > > neither are "the epitome of perfection". > > > Alla: > > Oh, I don't know about the "best he could", Betsy. I am really not > so sure about it. > > I mean, not to go back to Dursleys, but checking on Harry once in a > while would have been nice, especially since we know now that > Petunia did not have anything over Dumbledore's head > And I certainly do not think that Dumbledore did the best he could > by Sirius, in fact I am more sure of it than with Harry's case, > > > In Sirius' situation though, Albus went against the very basics of > Sirius' nature, when IMO it would have been easy enough to let > Sirius do something useful for the Order either by Using > invisibility cloak or in his animagus form, which was not widely > known ( I mean some knew, but I think that if Sirius knew that he > was doing something useful , he would have been more careful, IMO). > > Instead he basically put Sirius' in the house,which was more like a > prison to him and which made him succumb to depression with amazing > speed. > > No, I don't think that was the best Albus could do. > > > JMO of course, > > Alla Valky: I'm really dissappointed that I cannot counter your argument strongly Alla. You manage to make me empathise with your sense of failure on Dumbledores part. I'd like to say well Alla, you're just wrong, but IMO theres really no solid canon rebuttal for you, yet. Sorry that I can't fully restore your faith in Dumbledore for you. ;p Even so, as failures go on Dumbledores behalf. These look just too big to be taken quite at face value. (that's what this thread is about still right?) At the very least, I am still very iffy about taking Sirius' death and his torment in Grimmauld place at face-value-as-it comes-from-Harry's-POV. Dumbledore does contend that Sirius was too mature to be truly affected by the taunts of Snape. The compliment to Sirius upon his maturity, which IMO implied wisdom and reason beyond what Harry was able to comprehend at the time, strikes me as something to be taken beyond its face value in Harry's POV, that Dumbledore was just s wrong about that. IOW, as hard as it is, I would like to cling to the shred that DD's mistakes did not and do not pervade what he *knew* about things. What he felt is most definitely a different matter, and it lead him astray, it seems. But Dumbledore made bold claims in regard to what he *knew* about Sirius, and he further claims to be the only one who *knew* what danger Harry was in following Godrics Hollow. I suppose in that respect I must back the comparison Besty makes to Churchill, there were certain things that DD could not doubt, and choices that Dumbledore made upon those things, were certainly regettable. But I think that they are *not* his mistakes, I am sure we will discover this before the story concludes. Now I know in OOtP Dumbledore sat Harry down to tell him everything. And I am sure he did tell Harry everything, and, at face value, in that everything there seems to be nothing. But Dumbledore said he would *tell everything*, he didn't say he was going to then explain what it means. Valky From vmonte at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 12:41:59 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 12:41:59 -0000 Subject: ESE Slughorn Continued In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139854 Jessie: IMO LV does not have confidence in Malfoy being able to kill DD, so he needs someone inside of Hogwarts to keep tabs on both Malfoy and Snape, what better person than Slughorn? I am not sure if Slughorn is willing or an unwilling spy for LV, but I am sure that he is guiding and bullying Malfoy simultaneously watching that Snape is sharing all he knows, and monitoring DD to his physical condition and his quest for the Horcruxes. Snape has told the Bellatrix and Narcissa that Dumbledore is wounded and vulnerable; HBP p 31). Chapter 15 HBP pages 323-324 Malfoy tells Snape that "I've got all the assistance I need, thanks, I'm not alone!" and, when Snape asks him, "if you are placing your reliance in assistants like Crabbe and Goyle ?", Malfoy responds, "They're not the only ones, I've got other people on my side, better people!" Who else besides Greyback could Malfoy mean, no one but Slughorn IMO. If we have learned anything from JKR's books it is the fact that the new guy is never what he seems to be, and this is very evident in Slughorn. vmonte: Doesn't JKR make a point to tell us that Slughorn has no interest in DEs? And it's Zabini who tells us this, not Harry. Draco may have enlisted Zabini and Pansy into his ring. I also don't think it is a coincidence that JKR made sure to show that Zabini was attracted to Ginny (despite hating her for who she was). JKR even showed Ginny insult Zabini in front of everyone when she called him a poser. Vivian From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 9 12:43:57 2005 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 08:43:57 -0400 Subject: Depth? Things to take on their face value Message-ID: <007301c5b53c$25668c70$1ec2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 139855 vmonte: >>JKR's comments that "it's our choices that determine who we are" is also something that we should never forget. >>Snape and Draco consistently choose to behave badly to the other characters in the series. >>JKR is not going to let them off the hook for their actions. CathyD: I'm so sorry you can see no hope for redemption in people, vmonte. "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilites." (CS pg 245 Can Ed) Not *determine* what we are. Another I would add is: "You fail to recognise that it matters not what someone is born, but what they grow to be!" (GoF 614 Can Ed) "Snape's always been fascinated by the Dark Arts, he was famous for it at school....Snape knew more curses when he arrived at school than half the kids in seventh year..." (GoF 460 Can Ed) Can we conclude, by that, that SS was raised in the Dark Arts? I don't know, but he certainly was fascinated by them, created Sectumsempra apparently, and went on to become a Death Eater. However, Severus made a choice to turn his back on that (was redeemed, IMO) when he joined the Order of the Phoenix back in VWI. When he came to Dumbledore and told him what LV was going to do with the prophecy information. Which put Dumbledore in the position of being able to do all he could to protect the Potters. Severus saved Harry's life in PS after recognizing, in an instant, what was going on with Harry's broom. (As others have said, McGonagall did nothing. What other teachers were there and did nothing? It was SS who sprang into action.) It was SS who tried to prevent Quirrell stealing the Philosopher's Stone, was bitten by Fluffy when heading off Quirrell on Hallowe'en, promised to be Quirrell's enemy if he didn't stop trying to steal the Stone and start being loyal to Dumbledore/Hogwarts. Severus prepared - perfectly - Wolfsbane potion for Remus, every month as needed. Despite his personal feelings for Remus. SS was glad, even joyful, to have caught Sirius Black in the Shrieking Shack. Not just as payback for *the prank*. SS believed, still at this point, that Sirius had been the Potters' Secret-Keeper and was the one who thwarted Dumbledore's plan to protect James, Lily and Harry. After Severus turning to the Order of the Phoenix for help, Sirius Black, James' best friend, turned them over to LV. Sirius deserved to be *soul-sucked* in SS's mind, just as Harry thought so: "'He deserves it,' he said suddenly. 'You think so?' said Lupin lightly. 'Do you really think anyone deserves that?' 'Yes,' said Harry defiantly. 'For...for some things...'" (PA 183 Can Ed) Severus made another choice at the end of GoF: "'Severus,' said Dumbledore, turning to Snape, 'you know what I must ask you to do. If you are ready ... if you are prepared ...' 'I am,' said Snape. He looked slightly paler than usual, and his cold, black eyes glittered strangely. 'Then, good luck,' said Dumbledore, and he watched, with a trace of apprehension on his face, as Snape swept wordlessly after Sirius. It was several minutes before Dumbledore spoke again." A choice to stay loyal to Dumbledore and the Order of the Phoenix (including Sirius incidentally), and to continue to play his role as Death Eater so he could spy on LV/DEs for DD. In OotP the grudge between Severus and Sirius was still evident. Sirius had escaped and lost SS his Order of Merlin: the recognition Severus was after that he is indeed a good person. Now that SS knows Sirius was not the Potter's Secret-Keeper, the grudge is back to *the prank* and the loss of the OM. There is no doubt, IMO, that Severus is working for the Order. It was he who found out that LV was after the Prophecy and would go to any lengths to get it. It is because of this information that the Order was guarding the DoM. It was SS who provided fake Veritaserum to Umbridge. It was SS who deciphered Harry's cryptic message about Padfoot and quickly set about determining Sirius' safety. It was SS who, when Harry & Co. failed to return from the Forest, determined that they had gone to rescue Sirius and quickly notified the Order. He couldn't go himself; he was needed at Hogwarts (the only Order member left there) and to appear at the MoM would put him at risk of breaking his cover. (It was SS, IMO, who informed Dumbledore of LV's anger 'terrible to behold' on finding out the diary had been mutilated and robbed of its powers and, in so doing, possibly confirmed what DD thought about the diary being a Horcrux.) In HBP Severus works diligently to find out what Draco is up to. He informs Draco that his attempts have been sloppy and if he continues in this way it will lead to his expulsion and, ultimately therefore, his death. By the end of HBP Severus has saved the lives of Dumbledore, Draco and Katie Bell directly. He saved Ron's life indirectly (perhaps even Draco, Harry, Flitwick, Luna and Hermione), and spared the lives of everyone in the school by ensuring that the Death Eaters and Greyback got out quickly. I do not see that Snape chose to behave badly toward the other characters in the series. In fact, I see that he behaved as a member of the Order of the Phoenix would behave, with honour. He is in a very delicate position. He has two covers to maintain: that of member of the Order of the Phoenix, which he is, and that of Death Eater which he is playing. He must maintain his Death Eater role in front of the children of Death Eaters. Severus doesn't like Harry because he reminds him so undeniably of James, and Lily, and what he, SS, did to bring about their deaths. He lives with it every day. Every time he claps eyes on Harry he is reminded of what he did and who he did it to. Apart from that he has to treat Harry as a "secretly unrepentant Death Eater" (thanks Pippin) would do: this is the kid that brought down the Dark Lord. You can't expect SS to fawn over him or the tales that would be brought home to the likes of Lucius Malfoy would rip Severus' cover to shreds. On thing, one incident, makes people forget everything Severus *has* done and done well. One well placed - yet not so easily explained - AK. However, this AK reacted in no way similarly to the others we have witnessed. The results of this AK - apart from death - were in no way similar to those others we have witnessed. Do I believe Dumbledore is well and truly dead? YES. Do I think this AK killed him? NO. As to Draco, I could care less what happens to him. He's been a prat from the beginning of the series. Whether JKR chooses to redeem him or not makes no difference to me. If he dies saving Harry from Nagini, I will not shed one tear. I cried buckets when Ginny told Harry what had happened to Bill. I will cry buckets when Severus dies. as I'm certain he must, and not long into book 7. I'm already stockpiling tissues in anticipation. CathyD - begging pardon for the poor grammar, bad spelling and horrible punctuation [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 07:15:34 2005 From: moosiemlo at yahoo.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 00:15:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Not a Dark Mark In-Reply-To: <1126086022.1049.49553.m19@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20050909071534.51764.qmail@web30003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139856 Lynda Cordova wrote: > > I've been saying for six books now that Draco Malfoy was/is my > > prime candidate for werewolf/vampirism. Jazmyn wrote: > I just don't see this at all. The Malfoys are dark wizards and > purebloods. They view non-humans, half-breeds and WEREWOLVES as > vermin.They despise them, even if they are 'using' them as weapons. > Draco would likely rather die then become a werewolf. I cannot see > Draco or any of the DEs willingly becoming werewolves. He was > sickly from STRESS, not from werewolf bite. And his disappearances > were from him trying to repair the vanishing cabinet so he could > get the DEs into the school and he could complete the task > Voldemort gave him. Lynda: I mentioned this as a possibility. Certainly the stress of being unsuccessful at his task of killing Dumbledore could be/is making him ill. Certainly, also, his disappearances were because he was trying to repair the vanishing cabinet. But the illness from stress and the disappearances to repair the cabinet could also be masking the werewolf transformation if--and only if--the Draco as werewolf theory is true. I was certainly not the first to postulate the theory and I won't be disappointed either way. Just having fun with theories. Lynda From dc.thorburn at ntlworld.com Fri Sep 9 13:40:25 2005 From: dc.thorburn at ntlworld.com (Derek Thorburn) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 14:40:25 +0100 Subject: correction - PS/SS Chapter 17 Message-ID: <005b01c5b544$09fbfd00$3e781652@thorburn> No: HPFGUIDX 139857 Just a correction regarding Chapter 17 of PS/SS. The title of the chapter is "The Man with Two Faces", although I'm going by Philosopher's stone - Sorcerer's Stone may be different. Derek From iam.kemper at gmail.com Fri Sep 9 13:58:49 2005 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 06:58:49 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Killing tears the soul apart redux. WAS: Re: Snape's penance? In-Reply-To: References: <700201d405090615457d737c4e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <700201d40509090658128b2497@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139858 Kemper wrote earlier: > "I started wondering if it was even possible to destroy the > soul. What is the soul? I don't know, but I'm going to presume, as > there's an absence of proof, that the soul is energy. So if > it's not possible to destroy energy, and therefore any part of the > soul. What happens to the parts of Voldemort's soul that were in the > Diary and the Ring? I think those soul parts returned to their energy > source. Not Voldemort... THE source: whatever that source may be: God, > the Universe, Anything." msbeadsley responded: I thought it was a lovely premise, but something about it bothered me, > and I finally came up with it: the dementors. They feed on emotion and > they suck out souls. IIRC, they seem to be eager to do both, or > either. If sucking out a soul meant only that it was released to > return to the Collective Soul (sorry 'bout that, music lovers) and > resulted in no payoff for them, why would they bother? Kemper now: My impression of the 'breeding' of Dementors was that a Dementor is created/conceived by sucking out the soul of its victim. So the soul isn't destroyed; it is transformed. Going with the Conservation Law of Energy model up-thread with regards to the Soul, the Soul is converted to a Dementor. Makes me wonder what Snape's other way of dealing with Dementor's is. The Patronus is a wonderful charm for pushing Dementors away, it doesn't really defeat them in the long run. What if Snape's other way of dealing with Dementors converts/transforms/transfigures the Dementor back to a Soul? This way could be more dangerous because of the magic involved, distance required, or something else: making Harry think that the Patronus is a better option for many of the students. Kemper [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Sep 9 14:37:53 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:37:53 -0000 Subject: Believing Harry is not a Horcrux Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139859 Just a piece of trivia to start with. The first contribution posted by a member after the 19th July restart was message 132908. When I came to send this message, the latest on the group was 139858, a total of 6951 posts in just under 53 days. Why the trivia? To cover my back if what I am writing now has been dissected in several hundred posts already. I suspect that many members, like myself, do not have the time to wade through the myriad threads ? many with similar titles. Again, as I said recently, I am a non-conspiracy theorist and tend to take a simplistic view. Up until recently, I have tended to avoid discussion on the Horcruxes and kept an open mind about their qualities. However, I am tempted to emerge cautiously from my trench under my tin hat to enter the discussion on whether Harry is a Horcrux or not, coming down on the side of the argument that he is not. We are told that a Horcrux is created, "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-" [1] Now, considering Harry as a possible Horcrux, it has been suggested that it could have happened at Godric's Hollow. Passing beyond this for a moment. I think on the other occasions when Voldemort and Harry were close together, the conditions for creating a Horcrux did not obtain. At the end of Philosopher's Stone, the question has been raised as to whether Quirrell died because of Harry's attack or Voldemort's withdrawal from his possession. Whatever the cause, Voldemort was in disembodied form and was not able to wield a wand. One the next occasion when they met directly at the end of Goblet of Fire, it was Peter Pettigrew who actually murdered Cedric; at that point in time, Voldemort was again in no state to use a wand. Later in the face off, he was more intent on killing Harry than doing anything else to him. And in the last encounter at the Ministry of Magic, Voldemort did not murder anyone, although he tried to hit Harry with an Avada Kedavra. Dumbledore comments on Voldemort's progress in HBP: "However, if my calculations are correct, Voldemort was still at least one Horcrux short of his goal of six when he entered your parents' house with the intention of killing you. He seems to have reserved the process of making Horcruxes for particularly significant deaths. You would certainly have been that. He believed that in killing you, he was destroying the danger the prophecy had outlined. He believed he was making himself invincible. I am sure he was intending to make his final Horcrux with your death." [2] So, if there had been a chance to make Harry into a Horcrux, it would have had to be at Godric's Hollow. But it would seem that Voldemort was obsessed in destroying the person he saw as his most dangerous opponent. I agree that on this occasion he did commit murder twice but I believe that his intentions were then directed to killing Harry and that he did not give any thought to making him a Horcux. As this point, those he had created were all encased in "objects" and the thought that he could create a living fragment case may not have occurred to him. I cannot subscribe to the idea that a Horcrux could be created accidentally. This is not mixing the wrong ingredients for a potion and creating something new and unexpected. The spells for a Horcrux must be very specific and powerful. I do not think that in the sudden turmoil of the backfire and personal disembodiment which would have been disorientating, to say the least, that Voldemort would have been able to do anything further in the way of casting spells and I see Lily's protection ? whatever form it did take ? saving his life and nothing else. [1] HBP "Horcruxes" p..465 UK edition [2] ibid. p.473 From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Sep 9 14:38:11 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:38:11 -0000 Subject: Depth? Things to take on their face value (Was: Sirius' loyalty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139860 Responding to several posters here: vmonte, Pippin and Marianne. Jen previously: > And the chain is just beginning, the ramifications of Dumbledore's > huge mistake would mount in Book 7 if Snape truly is working at > Voldemort's side. If this one is true, the real redemption will be > Harry righting Dumbledore's wrong. Vmonte: > Isn't real life like this though? There is alway s someone else ready > to come up through the ranks and take the place of the last bad guy. > Snape even talks about the Dark Arts as a many headed monster. Each > time a neck is severed, a new head sprouts even fiecer and cleverer > than before. Evil never ends. > > So, even if Snape dies in the end do you honestly believe that there > won't be someone waiting in the wings to take his place? Jen: Oh, I don't have a problem with the idea someone could turn on Dumbledore, be lured by the power of evil, etc. I meant more that in the case of Dumbledore making a mistake about Snape's loyalty, it would mean he put his students, his professors, Order members, the creatures and beasts in the Forest, & Harry in danger from the get-go. Dumbledore's life work to me was building Hogwarts into a santuary for everyone who crossed through there, whether pure-blood or Muggleborn, House elf or half-giant, able professor or prophecy-channeller. As Harry said, he was the great Protector. Scoff if you will, but I believe Dumbledore's tests for loyalty would prove harder to pass than Voldemort's. Voldemort has a simple strategy- -"if I suspect you of disloyalty, and I probably will, I will keep you in line with pain and the threat of death." Dumbledore would employ a much different strategy, something impossible for a truly unrepentant person to pass year after year. Look how quickly he discovered Harry's true loyalty! One year into Hogwarts and already Harry has proven himself when he looks in the mirror and wants the stone, but not to use it. Then in COS he calls Fawkes to him. I'm not saying DD set these up as tests, but he certainly noticed the outcomes. Snape could not be on-guard every minute of every day, walking around Hogwarts and never betraying his true nature. Meaning if his nature is evil, not that he is a horrible person, which he clearly didn't try to hide ;). > Marianne: > And the problem with this would be??? So, DD would prove himself > wrong and Harry will find a way to right this. I don't see a > problem in the overall arc of the story. Snape turns out to be an > evil bastard, or a man who is not evil, but ultimately falls to his > darker instincts/passions, and Harry, (the hero, right?) turns > Snape's mistakes, transgressions, sins, whatever, into a force for > good. Jen: I actually agreed with your thoughts in a later paragraph not quoted--Harry is the hero and will save the day, no harm done. No, it doesn't have to ruin the hero story arc for Dumbledore to be wrong about Snape. Harry will still do what he needs to do, defy the odds and everything will be OK in Potterland. Why don't I feel comforted by that? Marianne: > I don't see this as a negation of DD's life work. He's someone who > has valued people as individuals and recognized that society's > tendency to lump people into stereotypical groups is wrong. He's > recognized that people may strive their utmost to achieve the best > that they can, and thay they may still fall short. He shows that to > forgive can be a lifeline to people trying to turn their lives > around. Jen: This is all true, too. I tried to address some of the reasons why I felt his life's work was something a little bit different in my paragraph to vmonte. Dumbledore's ability to value people as individuals and offer forgiveness and second chances was something that sprung out of his work at Hogwarts, it wasn't the work itself. Some people save others one at a time, but Dumbledore attempted to save the community by bringing together a disparate group of the WW elite and the WW outcasts and offering a place to live together safely and work out their differences. A betrayl by someone like Crouch!Moody or Umbridge, who came in for one year, is one thing. Betrayl by Snape, who lived and worked there for 16 years and was someone Dumbledore depended on to take the high road, not for him but for all the people and creatures protected by him, is quite another. The idea he rolled the dice on Snape for 16 long years and never once felt a hint of who Snape truly was is mind-boggling. Unless, as you say, Snape simply finally gave in to his darker side and it wasn't apparent until the moment on the tower. Which would be even more baffling. Marianne: > None of this should be denigrated just because some of DD's projects > show themselves not up to the task. If some of the people he gave > second chances to proved themselves unworthy, the fault is with > them, not Dumbledore. Jen: Oh no, I'm not blaming DD even if this scenario is true. At all. I'm saying what he worked for can now be dismantled if Voldemort truly has Snape at his side. Having the DE's infiltrate Hogwarts and put everyone in danger was merely the first step in a long process of tearing down what DD stood for, literally and figuratively. > Pippin: > I think it will make things very complicated in the end to have > Dumbledore be wrong about Snape. There will have to > be a lot of shoring up not to undermine the idea that people > are worth a second chance at trust. Is there any indication that > this teaching, among all the fatherly guff that Dumbledore hands > out, is misguided? Well, Moody thinks it is, but his paranoia > is not presented as something to admire. Jen: The more I think about it, the more complicated it gets. And not just from shoring up the belief in people being worth second chances, but also from a plot standpoint. Think of all the information Snape would take back to Voldemort about Dumbledore, the Order, Harry, the Horcruxes.....and the list goes on. Unless Snape is not completely on Voldemort's side, and plans to use his superb Occlumency skills, he will be delivering every plan Dumbledore devised to Voldemort. I thought HBP did a good job of negating our previous glimpses of Voldemort as the supreme bungler. We see some pretty fearsome details about how Voldemort and his followers plan to coerce and destroy their opposition. To be in possession of Snape's information, with Dumbledore dead, and Voldemort *still* not be able to defeat Harry might look something like this: "My Lord, I deliver to you a list of people who are currently defying you, knowledge that Dumbledore and now Potter are aware of and are attemtping to destroy your Horcruxes, blah, blah...." "AHA! I feel an evil plan coming on, one where I wait until Potter is about to destroy my last Horcrux, then I will surely trap him THIS time. Bwahahaha.....!" Actually, it could happen. JKR set up Voldemort's obsessional nature with the logical conclusion being he will defeat himself. Jen From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Sep 9 14:50:59 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:50:59 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's decisions (was:Re: Depth? Things to take on their face value...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139861 > Alla: > > Oh, I don't know about the "best he could", Betsy. I am really not > so sure about it. > > I mean, not to go back to Dursleys, but checking on Harry once in a while would have been nice, especially since we know now that Petunia did not have anything over Dumbledore's head - that he did not promise her family some kind of protection in exchange for taking Harry , or something like that. ( Unless I am forgetting something, of course) Pippin: But likewise, Petunia had nothing to lose by throwing Harry out, except that she would have reneged on her agreement. The Dursleys seem to feel that they shouldn't do that. I guess they have honor of a sort. At least, if Harry had been raised in a family where dirty tricks were the norm, he would have anticipated the one that Malfoy played on him with the duel in Book One as a trick, and he wouldn't have thought he could bargain with Vernon to sign his permission form if he behaved. I think, if the Dursleys no doubt fragile concept of honor was all that was standing between Harry and Voldemort, Dumbledore was wise not to put more pressure on it. Really though, if Dumbledore was wrong about Snape, he could be wrong about anyone. In that case, was he not wise to place Harry where he could not be harmed by any wizard in the service of Voldemort, even if that wizard was someone who had Dumbledore's trust? I suspect we will learn the true value of the Privet Drive protection when it evaporates and hordes of giants, dementors and inferi (oh my!) descend on Little Whinging. Meanwhile, complaining that it was not worth the price -- wouldn't that be like those legendary fools who tore down the fence at the cliff edge, having decided that it wasn't needed since no one ever fell off? Alla: > And I certainly do not think that Dumbledore did the best he could by Sirius, in fact I am more sure of it than with Harry's case, because as I said I am inclined to believe that Dumbledore indeed wanted Harry to survive and maybe at least in Harry's case he had some misguided ideas that Dursleys WILL treat Harry as a son, because he asked them to and because Petunia may have some scrap of humanity left in her, because she took Harry in. Pippin; I think Dumbledore knew that Harry would suffer dark and difficult years at the Dursleys even if Petunia and Vernon had followed his wishes and treated Harry as they treated their son Dudley. In fact Harry would have suffered even more damage. But Dumbledore would have wished all the same to think there was a little more love in the world, even if it meant that Harry arrived at Hogwarts thinking of Draco as a kindred spirit and let himself be sorted into Slytherin without a qualm. Alla: > In Sirius' situation though, Albus went against the very basics of Sirius' nature, when IMO it would have been easy enough to let Sirius do something useful for the Order either by Using invisibility cloak or in his animagus form, which was not widely known ( I mean some knew, but I think that if Sirius knew that he was doing something useful , he would have been more careful, IMO). Pippin: Albus was not a fairy godfather whose job was to make everyone happy. Sirius was not a prisoner in the house; there was nothing keeping him there except his willingness to be Dumbledore's man, and his conviction that Harry needed him. That was what was important to him. I can see no indication in canon, anywhere, that Sirius ever thought that he, himself, needed to be careful, no matter how much Harry longed that he should be. Sirius was disappointed that Harry was not more like James; has any one ever considered that Harry was disappointed that Sirius was not more like him? Pippin From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 14:58:11 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:58:11 -0000 Subject: Depth? Things to take on their face value (Was: Sirius' loyalty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139862 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > Unless Snape is not completely on Voldemort's side, and plans to > use his superb Occlumency skills, he will be delivering every plan > Dumbledore devised to Voldemort. Assuming that Snape *knows* every plan Dumbledore devised. I submit to you that we can't assume that, given the canonicity of things going on that we saw that Dumbledore probably didn't tell Snape about. (Unless, of course, he's lying to Harry about how many people know all of the prophecy, or the horsepuckies.) The more I think about it, given interview comments and some introspection, the more I think that Snape knows *less* than we've always thought he did. The whole model of Snape and Dumbledore working tightly in concert has always seemed a little gooey to me (especially given the meltdown at the end of PoA), in part because of the depth of outright direction it takes from Dumbledore. For instance, I don't think that Snape being nasty in class is some part of a grand master plan to demonstrate his 'actual' allegiances to the other DEs. Lucius Malfoy makes comments out not appearing to dislike Harry Potter, so good behavior could be explained as well. I think it's simplest there to assume that Dumbledore, in line with his general inclinations, let Snape be Snape. Now, what that means-- misdirected anger and guilt or mean-spirited malice--that's rather open, methinks. That's irrelevant to my main objection here, though. :) -Nora gets ready to go *not* be a Snape-like teacher for her rugrats From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Sep 9 15:15:54 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:15:54 -0000 Subject: Depth? Things to take on their face value (Was: Sirius' loyalty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139863 > Neri: > I predict that two characters who are going to justify their second > chances will be Draco and possibly Kreacher. Pippin: But they were only shown mercy, not trust. I'm asking how Dumbledore's belief that someone on their second chance can be *trusted* is to be validated if Snape failed his trust. Neri: > Also, even if Snape betrayed Dumbledore's trust and killed him, it > might still be possible for Dumbledore to turn out right about Snape > in the end. For example in the Life Debt theory: Dumbledore trusted > Snape because Snape has a life debt to Harry. Pippin: That wouldn't be real trust, it would only be the kind of magical obligation that binds Kreacher. I want proof that someone who once failed can be trusted in the future to choose good, not just in time for the crucial victory, but for every day of sixteen years. Obviously Dumbledore believed that was possible, even if he was wrong about Snape himself, and I need to see that belief validated in some way. Dumbledore sometimes doesn't do what his philosophy tells him he should, but we've never had any indication that Rowling thinks the philosophy itself is wrong. Epitome of goodness and all that. Face value. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Sep 9 15:41:13 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:41:13 -0000 Subject: Depth? Things to take on their face value (Was: Sirius' loyalty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139864 jen: > > Unless Snape is not completely on Voldemort's side, and plans to > > use his superb Occlumency skills, he will be delivering every plan Dumbledore devised to Voldemort. Nora: > Assuming that Snape *knows* every plan Dumbledore devised. I submit to you that we can't assume that, given the canonicity of things going on that we saw that Dumbledore probably didn't tell Snape about. (Unless, of course, he's lying to Harry about how many people know all of the prophecy, or the horsepuckies.) Pippin: Snape knows that Dumbledore injured his hand retrieving a gold ring with a black stone, and he is just as capable as Scrimgeour of deducing that Harry was on top of the tower, and had accompanied Dumbledore on one of his mysterious disappearances. Voldemort already knows that Harry destroyed the Diary. He would hardly need to be told more. Snape knows that Dumbledore had a Pensieve and that it may still contain valuable memories, including the entire prophecy. Snape knows that Ginny owes Harry her life and has been seen with him quite a bit lately. Pippin From darkmatter30 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 15:50:53 2005 From: darkmatter30 at yahoo.com (Richard) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:50:53 -0000 Subject: Redemptive pattern or Snape in love??? In-Reply-To: <1b9.1b6af57c.30528916@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139865 juli17 at a... wrote: > Book 7 isn't going to reveal a redemptive pattern in Snape, as that > pattern has been obvious throughout the books (and the interviewer > states it as if it's a fact already in evidence). I think Book 7 is going > to reveal a Snape not "falling in love" but a Snape who has *been* > in love before, thus JKR's stunned reaction that someone would > have considered the Snape in love concept. (And I know JKR said > "Who would want Snape in love with them?", which is a valid point. > Probably no one, but that doesn't mean Snape couldn't love--or have > loved--someone unrequitedly.) > > Julie > (who votes for Lily as love interest, since Narcissa as love interest > adds nothing to the plot--unless Draco is a love child ;-) Richard here: Let's open up the doors here with a little rank speculation ... Let us suppose for a minute that Draco, whose birthday is given as June 5, was premature. I'm not saying just shy of two months premature, but say, oh, better than a month. We know that bad outcomes are possible for births in the WW, thanks to Merope's tale, and it is conceivable that an acute problem in a pregnancy might still be result in a birth before St. Mungo's could be reached, or that it might be most effectively handled by allowing or forcing a premature birth. We don't know EXACTLY what Voldemort was told about the prophecy, except that it was the first part, rather than all of it. So, it is at least conceivable that Voldemort might hold ANY pregnancy that might result in a birth "as July dies" as suspect. Even if he knows the birth is to some couple that has defied him three times, we don't necessarily know what Voldemort would consider defiance. He might well regard ANY hesitation or questioning of his commands defiance. So, I think it conceivable that Narcissa's pregnancy might well have been held suspect by Voldemort, and that Voldemort might well have decided (and it became known to Snape) that Narcissa's and Lucius' scion was on the tentative hit list. Given this (rank speculation), if Snape's eye were more directed toward Narcissa than Lily (or, for you slash/fiction fans, Lucius, rather than Lily), it is still conceivable that Snape was taken aback by Voldemort's interpretation of and response to the prophecy, without any attachment on Snape's part to Lily. Richard, who likes to speculate, but doesn't take his own speculations all that seriously. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 15:56:57 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:56:57 -0000 Subject: Believing Harry is not a Horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139866 Geoff Bannister wrote: > > I cannot subscribe to the idea that a Horcrux could be created > accidentally. This is not mixing the wrong ingredients for a potion > and creating something new and unexpected. The spells for a Horcrux > must be very specific and powerful. I do not think that in the sudden > turmoil of the backfire and personal disembodiment which would have > been disorientating, to say the least, that Voldemort would have been > able to do anything further in the way of casting spells and I see > Lily's protection ? whatever form it did take ? saving his life and > nothing else. Neri: But can you subscribe to the idea that an AK rebounding from Lily's protection would result in the unintentional transfer of powers? And in the possible transfer of memories too (Harry thinking That Tom Riddle's name is familiar in CoS). Would it also forge, by pure accident, a link between the minds? If you do subscribe to these ideas, then assuming also an unintentional Horcrux doesn't seem like that much of a leap anymore. In fact, an unintentional Horcrux could explain the powers transfer, the memories transfer and the mind link. It would be a *more* parsimonious explanation, not a less parsimonious one. If you don't subscribe to the unintentional transfer of the powers and the accidental forging of the mind link, then you have *a lot* of canon to contend with. I know that from personal experience . Neri From sophiapriskilla at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 16:17:28 2005 From: sophiapriskilla at yahoo.com (hekatesheadband) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:17:28 -0000 Subject: Harry's study habits In-Reply-To: <005d01c5b52b$f4415270$1ec2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139867 CathyD: <<> Obviously not a complete study on the subject, but IMO, Harry is not diligent in his studies. I'm sure he has great potential, I'm sure he's not defective mentally, but he certainly puts very little thought or effort into his studies on a routine basis.>> It looks like we're just going to have to disagree here. In my view, there are enough references to his studying to support the reading that he's a reasonably good student. He got plenty of OWLs, and he does perfectly good spellwork most of the time, and superb spellwork some of the time. Hermione can't wave his wand for him or recite his incantations herself, and no one whispered his OWL answers in his ear. I don't think it's just inherent power, either - even with his abilities and a lot of luck, an inherently powerful wizard with no idea of what he was doing would likely accomplish nothing but routine havoc punctuated by a few lucky breaks. CathyD: Impressive research! I'm a grad student and don't have time to comb through canon like that - though I flatter myself an excellent source of general pedantry;). That said, between brief references to studying (again, usually interrupted and passing - JKR is not inclined to write Harry's theory essays) and more involved, noticable library research scenes, I'd bet all my assets (CA$2.37) there are more than half a dozen. As for studying by himself, Harry is a more collaborative worker than Hermione - she studies alone, while Harry and Ron prefer to study together. Nothing wrong with group work if it's what works best for you. (I say that as an unwaveringly solo student, too.) And in terms of making things up for Divination or copying horoscopes - well, it certainly seems to suit the instructor - who Hermione, McGongall and Dumbledore all agree has nothing to teach. Harry has more important things to do with his time - from contemplating Voldemort's threat to gazing at his navel, actually. ;) As for not knowing other students' names - I can identify; I'm atrocious with names, and nowhere near as withdrawn as Harry. But I'm not sure this isn't just sloppy writing more than characterisation - JKR doesn't know most of their names either.;) -hekatesheadband (Agreeing to disagree, because the Sorting Hat is really Bono.) From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 16:18:46 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:18:46 -0000 Subject: Depth? Things to take on their face value (Was: Sirius' loyalty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139868 > Pippin: > But they were only shown mercy, not trust. I'm asking > how Dumbledore's belief that someone on their second > chance can be *trusted* is to be validated if Snape > failed his trust. > Neri: Well, you have pointed out yourself that Lupin was awarded that kind of trust. So either we will have ESE!Lupin and Innocent!Snape, or we will have Loyal!Lupin and Guilty!Snape. Whichever of these happens we are assured that at least one character would justify trust awarded as a second chance, and thus Dumbledore's epitomness is guaranteed. Neri From n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 16:24:09 2005 From: n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com (n_longbottom01) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:24:09 -0000 Subject: Depth? Things to take on their face value In-Reply-To: <007301c5b53c$25668c70$1ec2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139869 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cathy Drolet" wrote: > > On thing, one incident, makes people forget everything Severus *has* done and done well. One well placed - yet not so easily explained - AK. However, this AK reacted in no way similarly to the others we have witnessed. The results of this AK - apart from death - were in no way similar to those others we have witnessed. Do I believe Dumbledore is well and truly dead? YES. Do I think this AK killed him? NO. > n_longbottom01: I enjoyed your post, Cathy. I don't have my mind made up as to whether Snape is a hero or a villian or neither or both, but I like the way you laid things out in his defense. As to whether or not Snape's AK killed Dumbledore, I will be surprised if we get an explaination in book 7 that says that it was something other than the AK that killed him. I sort of think this AK behaved differently so Rowling could send off a great character with a spectacular death. Rowling may have intentionally chosen to leave room for doubt as to whether or not Snape was able to kill by casting AK on Dumbledore... clues like the existance of non-verbal spells... but I'm not certain we will hear Snape explaining that he knew he could never use AK against Dumbledore, so he cast a non-verbal spell at the same time which caused Dumbledore to be blasted off the top of the tower. If Snape turns out to be ever-so-good, I don't need to explain away the AK. I can forgive him for using the unforgivable curse, if he had no other choice. If ESG!Snape was trapped by his unbreakable vow into completing Draco's task, he would have told Dumbledore what was going on. Dumbledore could have responded that, if it came down to it, Snape was going to need to kill him. If Snape killed Dumbledore, it may save Draco's life, which would save Snape's life, and it would keep Snape in place next to the Dark Lord for completing whatever ESG!dead he is supposed to eventually complete. So, in this scenerio, Dumbledore is willingly alowing himself to be killed, and Snape is following Dumbledore's orders when he AK's him. If this (or something along these lines) is the situation Snape has found himself stuck in, then I read Snape's meeting with Dumbledore where it is reported that he said he "doesn't want to do this anymore" as meaning that he sees that he is going to have to kill Dumbledore, and he doesn't want to do it. Dumbledore tells him that what they are trying to accomplish is more important than Dumbledore's life. Snape continues playing his part in the plan... which eventually leads him to the top of the lightning struck tower. My other possible excuse for Snapes behavior in this scenerio is that Snape, as potions master and the Half-Blood Prince imediately recognizes that Dumbledore is poisioned beyond hope of saving. He uses AK to kill the as-good-as dead Dumbledore, saving Draco's life, his own life, and securing his position at the Dark Lord's side, as a part of Dumbledore's plan. I can forgive Snape for being able to use AK, if he is doing it for the reasons I list above. He knows more about the Dark Arts than most any wizard, I'm certain he knows what it takes to successfully cast AK. If he was able to do it, I don't hold it against him in this situation. Now, as to "this one incident" being the reason that I forget about all of the good stuff that Snape accomplishes throughout the series, I don't think that is true. I forget about the good stuff Snape accomplishes because of his persistant nastiness. Some of the nastiness may be an act, as a part of his cover, but I feel like a lot of it comes from the heart. The idea of Snape being able to use an evil, unforgivable spell, doesn't really change my opinion of him. I'm not trying to totally discount the idea that Snape only pretended to AK, but I for one don't doubt that Snape has it in him to use the spell. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 9 16:54:16 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:54:16 -0000 Subject: Harry's study habits. In-Reply-To: <005d01c5b52b$f4415270$1ec2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139870 "Cathy Drolet" wrote: > JKR has specifically said otherwise. > That she created the 40 kids for > Harry's year and that is what there is: 40.) That's close but I don't believe that's exactly what she said. She said (shortly after saying there were 1000 students at Hogwarts) that she developed histories and well defined personalities for 40 students, so naturally when she needs a student to do a bit of business or even just requires a spear carrier she would tend to use one of those 40, but that doesn't mean they are the only students there. She probably thought figuring out detailed histories for 1000 students or even 145, would be excessive and a waste of time, 40 is impressive enough. Eggplant From sherriola at earthlink.net Fri Sep 9 17:02:15 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 10:02:15 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's study habits In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002601c5b560$3bdc2c20$3621f204@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 139871 CathyD: <<> Obviously not a complete study on the subject, but IMO, Harry is not diligent in his studies. I'm sure he has great potential, I'm sure he's not defective mentally, but he certainly puts very little thought or effort into his studies on a routine basis.>> Sherry now: LOL, if that's what determines intelligence or the ability to succeed in life after school, i must be an idiot and completely a failure. My dad was always yelling at me because I didn't put any effort into school and was easily capable of doing straight a's without trying very hard. I only put in effort in the classes I liked, like writing and French. And as for being prepared for life, since when did school prepare anyone for that? The things you need to know to live in the world after school aren't taught in school, or at least not 30 years ago when I graduated from high school. My dad always told me he was going to make me move out when I was 18, and he sure did. But I was woefully unprepared. I didn't know how much things cost in the real world, how to budget, how to pay bills, the connection between earning and spending within your means. I knew how to cook, clean, do laundry and stuff like that, but not how to survive. i would guess it's the same in the WW. Sure, they learn how to do magic, but I don't know how prepared they will be for the world after Hogwarts. Not till they actually get out there and have to live in the world on their own with no teachers or parents to take care of everything. Even with magic, I bet there would be some hard life lessons to learn! Harry seems a pretty normal kid to me in his attitude toward school. Yet he was able to do exceedingly well on his OWLS. I don't think his knowledge of magic will be the deciding factor in his quest, so i think he's about where he should be in terms of being a very typical kid of his age. Sherry From elbarad at aol.com Fri Sep 9 17:23:23 2005 From: elbarad at aol.com (Rebecca Hoskins) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 17:23:23 -0000 Subject: Voldemort good/bad. Was: Twisted Irony In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139872 This post pertains to a discussion that was taking place a couple of weeks back. It is a reply to message number 138838. Del, repling to rebecca: > Unfortunately, those first months of life are *absolutely crucial* in > the development of a human being. That's when bonding takes place. If > bonding fails to take place, the person is going to have *huge* > troubles interacting normally with other people, *throughout their > life*. Harry bonded with his parents, he learned (even though > unconsciously) what love and attachment are, what they feel like, that > they are an integral part of life, and that he is entitled to them. > But Tom never learned that. He failed to bond, and as a consequence he > failed to learn to love and be loved, and all those little bits of > positive treatments he received through the years that you mentioned, > were rendered null and void of any meaning because Tom was simply > *incapable* of absorbing them. But I do have to stress that an upbringing such as his is not guaranteed to bring about the development of a psychopath. I have not read David Pelzer's books, " A child called 'it'" and " A boy called David", but I know that he was extremely badly abused for most of his childhood and had no period of love during those formulative years at all. His treatment was far worse than that of Tom Riddle and Harry Potter together. Yet he has somehow managed to become a normal and emotionally sound individual, fully capable of love and generosity. A lack of love at a young age can bring about some terrible problems, but it is not certain that this will happen, as David Pelzer can testify. I still maintain that Harry would not have become like Voldemort if he had been raised in Tom Riddle's stead. Neither would Tom Riddle have become a brave and generous boy like Harry if he'd been loved for 14 months and then raised by the Dursley's. This is, of course, only my opinion, but I believe that it was Tom's personality, an inborn arrogance if you like, that made him become what he did. Circumstances certainly made matters much worse, for example his experiences in the orphanage could easily account for his hatred of muggles. But I cannot think of any circumstances under which Tom Riddle could have been raised to produce a 'nice', 'brave', 'self- less' or 'caring' person. I don't believe that it was in his nature. Rebecca From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Sep 9 17:46:54 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 17:46:54 -0000 Subject: Believing Harry is not a Horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139873 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: Neri: > But can you subscribe to the idea that an AK rebounding from Lily's > protection would result in the unintentional transfer of powers? And > in the possible transfer of memories too (Harry thinking That Tom > Riddle's name is familiar in CoS). Would it also forge, by pure > accident, a link between the minds? > > If you do subscribe to these ideas, then assuming also an > unintentional Horcrux doesn't seem like that much of a leap anymore. > In fact, an unintentional Horcrux could explain the powers transfer, > the memories transfer and the mind link. It would be a *more* > parsimonious explanation, not a less parsimonious one. > > If you don't subscribe to the unintentional transfer of the powers > and the accidental forging of the mind link, then you have *a lot* of > canon to contend with. I know that from personal experience . Geoff: I don't disagree with the transfer of powers; it may even have been a duplication of powers because Voldemort retained his power to speak Parseltongue. It's the structure where I may differ. As a Christian, I accept the concept of "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your mind and with all your soul". To that end, I see the transfer of powers and memories that you list as being intellectual - i.e. of the mind. I do not see them as being to do with the soul and thus do not imagiane bits and pieces of Voldemort's soul moving over to Harry. Perhaps, he retained two pieces of torn soul in himself at that point. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 17:49:49 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 17:49:49 -0000 Subject: How many kids in Harry's year? ( JKR's quote) WAS:Re: Harry's study habits. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139874 > "Cathy Drolet" wrote: > > > JKR has specifically said otherwise. > > That she created the 40 kids for > > Harry's year and that is what there is: 40.) Eggplant: > That's close but I don't believe that's exactly what she said. She > said (shortly after saying there were 1000 students at Hogwarts) that > she developed histories and well defined personalities for 40 > students, so naturally when she needs a student to do a bit of > business or even just requires a spear carrier she would tend to use > one of those 40, but that doesn't mean they are the only students > there. She probably thought figuring out detailed histories for 1000 > students or even 145, would be excessive and a waste of time, 40 is > impressive enough. > Alla: I agree with you, Eggplant. This is not exactly what she said, IMO. Here is the quote from July 16 Interview. "JKR: Well, Hogwarts. All right. Here is the thing with Hogwarts. Way before I finished "Philosopher's Stone," when I was just amassing stuff for seven years, between having the idea and publishing the book, I sat down and I created 40 kids who enter Harry's year. I'm delighted I did it, [because] it was so useful. I got 40 pretty fleshed out characters. I never have to stop and invent someone. I know who's in the year, I know who's in which house, I know what their parentage is, and I have a few personal details on all of them. So there were 40. I never consciously thought, "That's it, that' s all the people in his year," but that's kind of how it's worked out. Then I've been asked a few times how many people and because numbers are not my strong point, one part of my brain knew 40, and another part of my brain said, "Oh, about 600 sounds right." Then people started working it out and saying, "Where are the other kids sleeping?" [Laughter.] We have a little bit of a dilemma there. I mean, obviously magic is very rare. I wouldn't want to say a precise ratio. But if you assume that all of the wizarding children are being sent to Hogwarts, then that's very few wizard-to-Muggle population, isn't it? There will be the odd kid whose parents don't want them to go to Hogwarts, but 600 out of the whole of Britain is tiny. Let's say three thousand [in Britain], actually, thinking about it, and then think of all the magical creatures, some of which appear human. So then you've got things like hags, trolls, ogres and so on, so that's really bumping up your numbers. And then you've got the world of sad people like Filch and Figg who are kind of part of the world but are hangers on. That's going to bump you up a bit as well, so it's a more sizable, total magical community that needs hiding, concealing, but don't hold me to these figures, because that's not how I think." So, at the very least we have the reason to doubt whether it is 40 or 600, IMO. Alla. From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 17:50:36 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 17:50:36 -0000 Subject: Depth? Things to take on their face value (Was: Sirius' loyalty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139875 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: >> Pippin: >> But they were only shown mercy, not trust. I'm asking how >> Dumbledore's belief that someone on their second chance can be >> *trusted* is to be validated if Snape failed his trust. > > Neri: > Well, you have pointed out yourself that Lupin was awarded that kind > of trust. So either we will have ESE!Lupin and Innocent!Snape, or we > will have Loyal!Lupin and Guilty!Snape. Whichever of these happens we > are assured that at least one character would justify trust awarded > as a second chance, and thus Dumbledore's epitomness is guaranteed. I hadn't thought of it in those logical terms, but I do believe that Neri is right. :) We've been arguing about how implausible it is that Dumbledore be fooled, but if we hew to Pippin's ESE!Lupin theory (which she has supported without break or failing heart), Lupin has gotten one over on Dumbledore--and has, indeed, been doing it for *years*. With real style, too, to evade suspicion and be granted as much forgiveness and acceptance as the Order has offered him. In this scenario, Dumbledore has given Lupin repeated chances to prove himself trustworthy--all of which Lupin has betrayed, but Dumbledore just keeps giving Lupin more chances. Does that make Dumbledore an idiot, or Lupin into the uber-smooth spy of the century? I suppose that it's BANG-ier than having Snape, who's worked much more closely with Dumbledore, be the betraying character. But it still makes Dumbledore into the fallible figure that ESE/OFH!Snape does, which means that very same thematic objection can also be applied to the ESE!Lupin theory. -Nora does occasionally wish she could use Hogwarts-class punishments for students who think Friday class is 'optional' From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 18:11:21 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 18:11:21 -0000 Subject: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort (was: Re: Draco's culpability...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139876 > > Betsy Hp: > I absolutely agree that Draco's actions in fixing the Vanishing > Cabinet led to the death of Dumbledore and Bill's injuries. I'm not > trying to let him off the hook on that. > > What was interesting to me, though, was that Draco chose to throw > himself into such a non-martial exercise. It backs up, IMO, > Dumbledore's assertion that Draco is not a killer. a_svirn: First you call it "non-lethal activity" that led to "events on the Tower" now it's a "non-marital exercise". You make it sound as though Draco was just mulling over an interesting scientific problem, when the Death Eaters came forth from the cabinet as if out of the cornucopia. The truth is, however, that it was an assassination plot, one that was devised and executed by Draco. Moreover, it was a SUCCESFUL assassination plot. And not only Draco was implicated in it, he was instrumental to its success. Branded or not, he has done more for the advancement of Voldemort's cause than his father and aunt put together. Yes, allowances for his age and family circumstances should be made, but no jury in the Universe ? Potterverse included ? would proclaim him innocent. > Betsy Hp: When Draco *does* attempt to "deal > death" as it were, his methods are *so* unsophisticated (especially > compared to the Cabinet plan) as to suggest his heart really isn't > in it. a_svirn: Really? And since when a murderer should be sophisticated to be efficient? It's not thanks to Draco Kathy and Ron are still alive. From manawydan at ntlworld.com Fri Sep 9 18:35:49 2005 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 19:35:49 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] STWNSHH (was Size) References: <1126228454.1970.96516.m28@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <002501c5b56d$4e861540$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 139877 Matt wrote:--- >If we *are* going to critique (or extrapolate from) her numbers, we >should at least make sure that we use the numbers she actually gave. >Ffred's analysis assumes a total British wizarding population of >3,000. JKR's interview postulated that the total number of >*school-age* British wizards was around 3,000. That's not my reading of what she said. Here it is, pasted "...I never consciously thought, "That's it, that' s all the people in his year," but that's kind of how it's worked out. Then I've been asked a few times how many people and because numbers are not my strong point, one part of my brain knew 40, and another part of my brain said, "Oh, about 600 sounds right." Then people started working it out and saying, "Where are the other kids sleeping?" [Laughter.] We have a little bit of a dilemma there. I mean, obviously magic is very rare. I wouldn't want to say a precise ratio. But if you assume that all of the wizarding children are being sent to Hogwarts, then that's very few wizard-to-Muggle population, isn't it? There will be the odd kid whose parents don't want them to go to Hogwarts, but 600 out of the whole of Britain is tiny. Let's say three thousand [in Britain], actually, thinking about it..." I read that as saying that there are 600 wizarding children but 3000 wizarding folk in total. But I do agree that the number of Hogwarts-age children would be around 5% (might be even smaller, it depends on whether you assume that the average age at death for wizards is 2x or 3x that of a muggle). >Ffred's analysis is also flawed in assuming that the British teams are >supported exclusively by British witches and wizards, something that >may well be untrue. Although we know that the World Cup teams >inspired national loyalties, it appears from the few student >discussions we've seen around Quidditch (Ron, Cho, etc.) that their >support is less tied to regional loyalty. Because distance presents I'm not sure what canon there is to suggest that people support "foreign" sides, though I agree that loyalty within the books doesn't seem to be geographical. Otherwise you'd have to take into account whatever estimates you want to make of where wizarding folk live (are they concentrated outside the cities, because it's easier to hide from the muggles, or do the distributions match?) Also, of course, if there's a significant number, say, of Flemish wizards popping over to support English sides, there's just as much likelihood of an equal number of English wizards going in the opposite direction. I do make other (unmentioned) assumptions, of course. One of them is that fans support their side through thick and thin, rather than there being some who fall by the wayside if the team are going through a rough patch, the other (perhaps more likely given what you rightly say about greater ease of travel), is that all the fans go to both home and away matches. >So, while JKR's numbers do have some genuine internal inconsistencies, >I'm not sure that the "Quidditch analysis" takes us much further down >the road of exploring them. No. And as I've said, all I was trying to do was to agree with JKR that her figures weren't reliable! hwyl Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 18:44:16 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 18:44:16 -0000 Subject: Horcrux predictions (Was: JKR's Ambiguities) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139878 Amiable Dorsai wrote: > But you know, the sword *isn't* the only known relic of Godric > Gryffindor--there's also the Sorting Hat. > A couple of things: 1)Armando Dippet liked and trusted Tom Riddle. I can easily imagine Riddle spending unsupervised time in the Headmaster's office, as Harry has done. 2) Magical artifacts, like the Goblet of Fire, and, presumably, the Sorting Hat, can be confunded. So If Riddle managed to make the Hat a Horcrux, the Hat wouldn't necessarily know. 3) The trace of magic left be the Horcrux-making process would be masked by the Hat's own magic, so it would be difficult to detect. 4)The Hat is a treasured artifact in a very secure place. Imagine the irony of one of the Horcruxes being guarded by the Hogwarts Headmaster--if Riddle has any sort of a sense of humor, that had to appeal to him. Carol responds: Interesting points, but Dumbledore knows Tom's style and doesn't trust him. I think he'd be able to detect any Dark magic, as would Snape, who spends a great deal of time in Dumbledore's office. And we've seen no signs that Riddle/Voldemort has a sense of humor (other than laughing at Harry's apparent helplessness and peril) or even of irony. What we do know about his Horcruxes, at least from Dumbledore's analysis, is that they're usually valuable in themselves and significant to him personally, not to mention that they should last forever or they're of no use in maintaining an *infinite* lifespan (earthly immortality). The hat, we see, shows signs of decreptitude. It's "patched, frayed, and dirty" (CoS Am. ed. 316) And note that Diary!Tom treats it with utter contempt: "This is what Dumbledore sends his defender! A songbird and an old hat!" (316) As for the Sword of Gryffindor, it seems to belong (like Fawkes) to Dumbledore, not to the current Headmaster. I doubt that it was in Dippet's office for Tom to convert to a Horcrux--probably a complex process, in any case, one that he wouldn't dare to risk performing except in absolute privacy. As Amiable Dorsai notes, he could convert the diary into a Horcrux at his leisure, along with the ring, at any time after he learned to make a Horcrux, but converting the Sorting Hat or the Sword of Gryffindor could only have been done during his seventh year (the conversation with Slughorn appears to be in his sixth year, after the murder of the Riddles but before he knows how to make a Horcrux). Also, just because Harry spends long periods alone in Dumbledore's office is no reason to assume that Tom did the same. Harry as the Chosen One and Dumbledore's protege is very much a special case. The conversation between Dippet and Tom in CoS (243-45) does not indicate a close acquaintance. (And would Tom have performed the Horcrux incantation under the watchful eyes of the former Headmasters? I can't imagine Portrait!Phineas sleeping through a Dark incantation.) Moreover, Harry uses both the Sorting Hat and the Sword of Gryffindor to defeat Diary!Tom--the hat conceals the sword, which kills the basilisk (whose fang Harry uses to destroy the diary). There's no sign that Tom recognizes the sword or surely he would have said so. (Dippet's office is recognizably different from Dumbledore's even though it's the same room. It contains the portraits but no Fawkes and no silver instruments. Neither the sword nor the Sorting Hat is mentioned.) In short, even as Head Boy (possibly) left alone in Dippet's office when Dippet was absent, I don't think Tom would have had access to the Sword of Gryffindor, and I don't think he would have considered the Sorting Hat worthy of being a Horcrux (not to mention that it represents the unity of all the Houses, not Gryffindor per se). Again, both objects have been used against him. I predict that the Sword of Gryffindor will be used again, not *as* a Horcrux to be destroyed but to *destroy* a Horcrux--the ill-chosen last-minute substitute for a magical object, Nagini (assuming that she really is a Horcrux). On a related note, some posters are questioning whether Moaning Myrtle's death counts as a murder. If Voldemort ordered Nagini to kill and eat Wormtail (as he threatens to do in GoF), wouldn't that be a murder, with Nagini as his weapon? So having the basilisk look into Myrtle's eyes (assuming that he ordered it to do so) would also be a murder. Carol, noting for the first time that the basilisk is "a bright, poisonous green" (318), much like the poisoned memories in the cave and the blinding flash of an AK From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 9 19:29:30 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 19:29:30 -0000 Subject: How many kids in Harry's year? ( JKR's quote) WAS:Re: Harry's study habits. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139879 Alla wrote: > So, at the very least we have the reason to doubt whether it is 40 or > 600, IMO. > Potioncat: Look at that snipping! Oh the wonder of me! I should get an award! Yes, she says she fleshed out 40 students for Harry's year, and it appears she worked out a handful more for other years. It seems she has a vague idea of a busy bustling school of young wizards. She didn't work out the actual numbers, determine how many teachers she needed, how many dormitories, whether the common rooms were big enough, how the schedule would work and if all those kids could be served meals in the Great Hall at one time. For all the warm awards we fans might wish for her, none of us will ever offer her a LOON badge. The problem is, many of us are looking for clues and quite a few of us are LOONy. We have to be careful how we use numbers because JKR is not careful with them. She says so herself. From lsanford at lnls.org Fri Sep 9 19:38:51 2005 From: lsanford at lnls.org (L Sanford) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 14:38:51 -0500 Subject: Ways to treat werewolf bites? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139880 Chagrined that I'm only now just noticing this, I ran across the following while doing my umpteenth read of SS/PS on page 220, chapter 15, Nicolas Flamel: "The next morning in DADA, while copying down different ways of treating werewolf bites, Harry and Ron were still discussing what they'd do with a Sorcerer's Stone if they had one." Huh? Later canon makes it clear that a bite from a werewolf has no cure. I know Bill's wounds were healing with visible scars remaining in HBP, but that was from a werewolf that was not transformed. The kids had just discovered who Nicolas Flamel was and at this point in the series (book 1), the presumption would be that a werewolf bite from a transformed, in- the- fur werewolf is just another magical beast injury sustained as a consequence of living in the wizarding world - easily corrected. Or is there a difference between "treating" a werewolf bite and "curing" it? Molley From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 20:46:21 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 20:46:21 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and DADA (Was: What mistakes Dumbledore made?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139881 Alla wrote: > So, to me it is very possible that he could not see from Snape POV, > so to speak and did not figure out Snape's real feelings and that his trust may have been misplaced. > > Besides, we have quite a few examples of Dumbledore trusting the > wrong people to fulfill DADA position. > Carol responds: Without going back into the question of whether Dumbledore was right to trust Snape (I think he was right, of course), I'd like to look at the predicament Dumbledore was in with regard to the DADA position. He knew it was cursed (LV's wand movement in the job application memory and the consequences for all DADA teachers from that point forward). What should he have done? We notice that for whatever reason, he withholds the job from Severus Snape for fifteen years. Whether he was protecting Snape or keeping a watchful eye on him or both, that seems to have been a wise move. Giving him the job, however great the apparent need to hire Slughorn for Potions (and a genuinely competent teacher for DADA) has disastrous consequences. We notice, too, that his other choices seem (at times) to reflect the current crisis, or at least to make *some* sense, given the limited pool of candidates: Lupin, the former friend of Sirius Black, is hired when the "murderer" Black is at large; the auror Moody is hired when the TWT is about to be held (it was not, of course, the real Moody who taught the course, but he's the one who was hired--with the agreement that the post would be for one year). Quirrel was a returning teacher who had run off to Albania for a year (summoned by his master via the DADA curse)? If he'd done his job competently two years previously, there's no reason to question that choice. (Unless you're Snape, that is.) Lockhart? He had an excellent reputation (nicely exposed as fraudulent by Snape and HR). Perhaps DD thought he could actually teach the class? And Umbridge he had no choice but to accept (unless he wanted to give SS the post, which he chose not to do). Perhaps he knew that the curse would dispose of her. The question is, how could he in good conscience hire *anyone* to teach the course? Why not abolish it since it's cursed? First, I don't think he'd be allowed to do that by the Board of Directors (I forget the name) or the MoM or the wizarding parents. Defense against the Dark Arts seems to be part of the standard curriculum. Even students who failed their DADA OWL (Crabbe and Goyle) continue to take it--the idea being, apparently, that this course is necessary to survival in the WW. And if it were correctly taught (as Snape teaches it in HBP or Lupin in PoA), it would undoubtedly be invaluable. Unfortunately, the students learn virtually nothing in Harry's first, second, and fifth years, and perhaps more than they should (what it's like to be under the Imperius Curse) in their fourth. But the problem is not the course itself but the teachers, which brings us back to Dumbledore. The supposed "jinx" on the position is undoubtedly well-known in the WW, which accounts in part for the shortage of applicants for the position. It's also quite likely that genuinely qualified applicants are few and far between. Dumbledore must hire someone. He doesn't want it to be Snape (who in any case would only last one year in the best of circumstances). I think he advertises for an applicant (or notifies the person he has in mind in the case of Lupin and Moody), advises them of the likelihood that the position will be short-term, and gives them the choice of accepting or rejecting the position. I would hope that he mentions the fate of previous instructors where relevant ("Oh, by the way, Remus, our last instructor lost his memory and the one before that died. You understand that you are taking a great risk by accepting this position, but given the present circumstances with Black and the Dementors, I need your help . . . .") So I would argue that Dumbledore has done the best he can with regard to the DADA instructors. The only mistake I can see is giving Snape the DADA position. There must have been some other way to get that memory from Slughorn, or to make do without it. But the time had come, it seemed, to give Snape his chance as DADA teacher in a time of crisis, to end the protection he had received from Dumbledore as Potions master. There was no one else to fill the post. Surely they both knew the risk they were taking, one in offering and the other in accepting the post. The curse, manifested in the Unbreakable Vow, struck with devastating effect. Was that Dumbledore's great mistake, not trusting Snape per se but trusting him with the cursed DADA position, which could so easily backfire and destroy the carefully built relationship between them--or worse? Or was Dumbledore's death at Snape's hands a felix culpa, a fortunate fault, like Snape's revelation of the Prophecy to Voldemort, which indirectly brought eleven years of respite to the WW through the vaporization of LV at Godric's Hollow? (I'm not crediting Snape with any such intention; actions in the Potterverse often have unintended consequences, and both good and evil intentions backfire, with Harry's rescue of Wormtail and his attempt to save Sirius from LV as prime examples of the first and LV's attempt to AK Harry as the obvious example of the second.) We can only hope that Dumbledore's decision to give Snape a position that he knew had been cursed by Voldemort was done with full knowledge of the possible consequences and that the apparent evil of his death is really a good in disguise. Carol, thinking of Dedalus Diggle setting off fireworks to celebrate the defeat of Voldemort ("this happy, happy day") even as the Potters lie dead and Harry is orphaned From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 20:32:27 2005 From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 20:32:27 -0000 Subject: Ways to treat werewolf bites? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139882 --- Molley wrote: [huge snip] . Or is there a difference between "treating" a > werewolf bite and "curing" it? > That same line jumped out at me when I was listening to the audio book the other day, and I reached the conclusion you suggest -- "treating" means something different from "curing." In this case, I think "treating" might indicate first-aid to be given right after a person is bitten. (Later we learn the recurring effects of the bite can be treated by Wolfsbane Potion, but alas, there is no cure -- once bitten, always a werewolf, or always someone "with a furry little problem"). Lyra From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 21:28:55 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 21:28:55 -0000 Subject: Depth? Things to take on their face value (Was: Sirius' loyalty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139883 > >>Betsy Hp: > > But you're combining two different things, I think: taking JKR > > at face value and taking Sirius's statements at face value. And > > frankly, you cannot do both. > >>Nora: > But JKR's statement is that she *means* Sirius' statement, the one > specifically discussed here, at face value. You absolutely cannot > get around that plain fact, much like the Ginny case. I wasn't > referring to the other ones at all. You pulled them in first. Betsy Hp: Actually, JKR wrote them, so she's the one who "pulled them in first". And we were analyzing a character. Taking bits and pieces of a character and ignoring other bits tends to lead to a faulty, or at the very least, a shaky conclusion. (And this is why I think it's risky to build too much off of the interviews, especially if it encourages the ignoring of canon.) JKR doesn't say "Sirius would have died for Peter." Actually, her interview response seems to indicate that Sirius would have died for James (and family). Which is a bit different, IMO. And also, strangely enough, a bit different from what Sirius actually said. I *do* think Sirius meant what he said when he said it. I just don't think it's something he'd have necessarily backed up in action. (Though I do think Sirius would have died for James.) > >>Nora: > > When you take characters who you give a fairly small amount of > screen time, you can really shock readers with the revelation > model, and still make it work. What if, for instance, we get a > memory scene of the Marauders acting very differently? That's not > necessarily Out of Character, it's just up to the readers to > adjust our mental images. Betsy Hp: But the smaller the amount of "screen time" the larger the impact of every scene we do get to see. And a competent author realizes this. In fact, in that sort of situation you'd best give a hint of normal before throwing in abnormal so your reader gets a heads up that something is amiss. Quirrell is a good example, I think. We meet him rather briefly and he strikes the reader as a nervous and timid man. But through Hagrid, JKR gives us a quick hint that all is not quite as it seems; his nervousness is a new thing. So when his behavior changes at the end of PS/SS the reader isn't shocked. Doesn't feel cheated. So I'll be *very* surprised if it turns out the Marauders were really led by Peter, James was actually a shy and retiring boy, Sirius was rather cautious and timid when it came down to it, and Remus was the campus stud. No, I think JKR gave us the "normal" for the Marauders, including pecking order, right up until the moment Sirius spotted Snape. (Actually, I think the only "abnormal" bit of that scene was that Snape was caught so unawares, but that's just IMO. ) Betsy Hp From linda122554 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 13:16:15 2005 From: linda122554 at yahoo.com (LINDA BUDD) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 06:16:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The graveyard at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050909131615.90498.qmail@web51808.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139884 > Ginger: > So if there is a graveyard there, who's buried in > it? Surely the founders would count as heads. If > it isn't done for heads, then it must not be for > teachers too. Students would be buried with family, > which leaves....House Elves? There is no graveyard at Hogwarts, and houselves heads are mounted on their masters' walls (like deer heads) when they die; I believe that was in book 4, Black's castle. DD was the only person to be laid to rest at Hogwarts. "Linda" From lady.indigo at gmail.com Fri Sep 9 21:02:23 2005 From: lady.indigo at gmail.com (lady.indigo at gmail.com) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 17:02:23 -0400 Subject: ESE Slughorn Continued In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <63378ee7050909140240e454ab@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139885 On 9/9/05, lebowjessica wrote: > > This is Jessie after my reread of HBP and why I think Slughorn > is ESE. > continued from my post on Horcruxes. I'm so glad I get to address this theory on here. A lot of what you've said here is almost word for word from John Granger at hogwartsprofessor.com , and I thought it was pretty much nonsense then, too. A lot of the 'evidence' behind this theory ignores or twists the canon, which explains and even outright disproves some of it. #1: Slughorn was not an 'admirer and associate of Voldemort', for one thing, he was an admirer of Tom Riddle and so was *everyone* else. We have it on word from JK Rowling that not all Slytherins are evil. And Dumbledore certainly doesn't seem bothered that Slughorn knows who Tom Riddle turned out to be (and we have no evidence that he knows the Heir of Slytherin thing, correct me if I'm wrong). #2: I wouldn't be offended if someone said the DEs wanted to "apply my talents to coercion and murder", because hey, if I believed myself to be talented (and certainly if I had the ego Slughorn does) I wouldn't doubt that the DEs would want to use me and what I can do. It doesn't mean I'd want to be on their side. And yes, Slughorn recognizes the ring, but he doesn't seem to make the connection. If he did recognize it as a Horcrux that's now destroyed it's evidence *against* Slughorn being evil, IMO; he wants Voldemort gone. And if he's a Death Eater, wouldn't he have probably known the ring was destroyed already? #3 is canon and I don't see why it's taken as evidence for anything. All it 'proves' is that Slughorn is a less than perfect person with his own Slytherin form of agenda. The connection to Voldemort's collecting is flimsy at best; Dumbledore seems to have amassed a lot of magical items as well, is he evil? #4: There's no *proof* that Slughorn gave Harry the book, and even if he did I don't see how it says a thing about Slughorn being evil. If he wants to increase Harry's power and give him the ability to fight poisons, I'd say it points in the opposite direction. But again, I don't think Slughorn had anything to do with the book. Someone like Slughorn, assuming he'd want to help students succeed by letting them cheat (and that is what I continue to call it and I'm really not going to be convinced otherwise), would be sure to give a little wink-wink nudge-nudge in Harry's direction - 'remember me? I helped you out here. Reward me with candy later.' I'm not even going to address #5. Seriously, read the book. The reason he freaked out here is completely explained and it's perfect. #6: If Hermione can brew Polyjuice Potion in second year, and Draco's almost as smart, why couldn't he do the same in sixth year? Not to mention willfully ignoring the canon here. If Slughorn's helping Draco out, why is Draco making such a big screaming deal about how Sluggy's ignoring him and all his connections? Including trying to get his attention in the middle of class and being ignored? Why would they go through this charade, exactly? To throw suspicion off? Nobody suspected them in the first place, and only Harry even suspected Draco. #7: First of all, Slughorn would probably be far too clever to notice what was going on *normally*. But Harry just drank liquid luck. Second, what would Voldemort gain from giving Harry the memory, exactly? He could lay a trap for Dumbledore in the cave, but this could be done without informing Harry about how many horcruxes there are. Why isn't the canon explanation of why Slughorn won't talk sufficient? Thirdly, Slughorn had to be TOLD about the acromantula venom. By *Harry*. Therefore I doubt he was relying on it for anything. #8: ...So? While I disagree, and I think it's both embarrassment and *shame* that another of his prize students turned up on the wrong side, what does this tell us about Slughorn beyond the imperfections and *slight* moral deviousness we already know? The only thing I find even remotely convincing here is how Slughorn would know how to produce a Dark Mark. But we're never explicitly told he knows how to do this. When he's reminded by Dumbledore, he only says he "knew he forgot something," and that there'd been no time to deal with it. He could have produced a false Mark in some way. Dumbledore certainly doesn't seem bothered by this little detail, which is something he's not inclined to forget about. Dumbledore also calls Slughorn his old friend, something I don't believe he does lightly. It's not to butter Sluggy up; they each seem to have no illusions about the way the other operates. It's not in the past tense. I think that's important. I also think that if Rowling abandons a highly realistic, interesting character for the old 'Slytherins are evil and watch out for the new teacher' ploy, I'll be starting to lose my trust in her. - Lady Indigo From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Sep 9 22:00:45 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 22:00:45 -0000 Subject: Depth? Things to take on their face value (Was: Sirius' loyalty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139886 Nora: > Assuming that Snape *knows* every plan Dumbledore devised. I > submit to you that we can't assume that, given the canonicity of > things going on that we saw that Dumbledore probably didn't tell > Snape about. (Unless, of course, he's lying to Harry about how > many people know all of the prophecy, or the horsepuckies.) Jen: OK Nora, I exaggerated saying Snape would know *every* plan. JKR told us DD has no confidante, no equal--true. Saying Snape doesn't know every plan hardly negates the information he could take to Voldemort if he is truly serving him now. Sometimes the simplest view is best and sometimes it merely closes off legitimate extrapolation and assumption based on the text at hand. For instance, we know for a fact Dumbledore and Harry are the only two people in the world who know the full prophecy. We do not know for a fact that Snape has no awareness of the Horcruxes. I've read and re-read the Horcrux chapter, please direct me to what I'm missing if DD told Harry in simple terms (as he spoke in the broom shed) that no one else knows about the Horcruxes. Instead we know this: 1) First what Pippin said: "Snape knows that Dumbledore injured his hand retrieving a gold ring with a black stone..." 2) The ring had a 'terrible curse [ ] upon it too. Had it not been...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." (chap. 23, p. 503, Scholastic). (I emphasized the part about being 'desperately injured' by a terrible curse because I don't think it's extrapolating much to say that Snape would have had to a) recognize the effects of a terrible curse and b) figure out the best way to save DD's life once he determined what the problem was. He wasn't able to shove a Bezoar down his throat in this instance. DD wouldn't have to tell Snape anything at all for Snape to figure out DD was a victim of dark magic. Now, whose dark magic would Dumbledore be willing to sacrifice himself for, if he is on a quest to help Harry defeat Voldemort?) 3) Hopefully I'm not assuming too much to say Snape was the one who passed the information to Dumbledore about Voldemort's fury when he discovered the diary was gone. That doesn't guarantee Snape knew it was a Horcrux, but it's another piece of the puzzle Snape has knowledge of. > Pippin: > .....he is just as capable as Scrimgeour of deducing that Harry > was on top of the tower, and had accompanied Dumbledore on one of > his mysterious disappearances. Voldemort already knows that Harry > destroyed the Diary. He would hardly need to be told more. > > Snape knows that Dumbledore had a Pensieve and that it may still > contain valuable memories, including the entire prophecy. > > Snape knows that Ginny owes Harry her life and has been seen with > him quite a bit lately. Besides the list of things Pippin compiled, Snape knows: 1) Most of the members of the Order by name or sight. 2) Which professors are also Order members. 3) MOM employees who are Order members. 4) Skills various professors and Order members possess. 5) Layout of Hogwarts from his nighttime wanderings. Combine this with Voldemort who "had penetrated many more of [Hogwart's secrets] than most of the students who pass through this place, but [who] may have felt that there were still mysteries to unravel, stores of magic to tap." (chap. 20, p. 431, Scholastic). Other information I'm daring to extrapolate about Snape's knowledge, information he might have collected if truly on Voldemort's side and which Voldemort might find useful: 1) Blood status and family connections of some of the professors and students. 2) Students who might be open to recrutiment as DE's. 3) At least some of DD's protections on Hogwarts and possible weaknesses. 4) Missions of at least a few of the Order members gathered at meetings. I'm sure there's more. I'm not saying what JKR will do with all the information Snape possesses, it completely depends on his loyalty. I'm just pointing out some canon facts, some extrapoaltions from canon and the fact that Snape could provide Voldemort with quite a few juicy tidbits if he has taken a seat at Voldemort's side. Jen From ibchawz at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 22:01:04 2005 From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 22:01:04 -0000 Subject: STWNSHH (was Size) In-Reply-To: <003d01c5b4a3$ad66edc0$704b6d51@f3b7j4> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139887 ibchawz wrote: > Another thing I recall (let me know if my memory is faulty) is that > the stadium for the Quidditch World Cup was built to seat 100,000 > people. Considering that overseas countries were represented by > rather small groups of fans due to the logistics of travel, I think > it is safe to assume that the majority of the attendees were from > Europe (for the sake of discussion, I assume 70%). If the UK has > only a WW population of 3000, that leaves 67,000 to come from other > European countries. If this is the case, the UK actually has a > relatively small population of wizards/witches in comparison to other > European countries. Ffred responded: Would be 97,000 rather than 67,000 but I note your point. ibchawz replies: The number in my hypothetical case would be 67,000 coming from other European countries, since the assumption is that 30,000 are coming from non-European countries. Unlike JKR, math and numbers are my strength (one of the reasons I am an engineer). Ffred responded: Think about the logistics of accommodating around 30 times your national population, even for a short time, the amount of resources, food, etc that would be needed. It just wouldn't be feasible. ibchawz replies: I can agree with that. The MOM was in a bit of a panic over the event. The people with "cheap seats" had to arrive 2 weeks in advance due to the logistical problems with portkey travel. ibchawz From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 22:51:41 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 22:51:41 -0000 Subject: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort (was: Re: Draco's culpability...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139888 > >>a_svirn: > First you call it "non-lethal activity" that led to "events on the > Tower" now it's a "non-marital exercise". You make it sound as > though Draco was just mulling over an interesting scientific > problem, when the Death Eaters came forth from the cabinet as if > out of the cornucopia. Betsy Hp: I agree with everything except that last part. Draco obviously expected Death Eaters to arrive once he'd restored the Cabinet, and I believe I've stated that I'm aware of that. > >>a_svirn: > The truth is, however, that it was an assassination plot, one that > was devised and executed by Draco. Betsy Hp: Yes. And yet, one in which Draco gains no lethal skills. That interests me. Just as it interests me that, though the end is assassination, the means is so very benign. > >>a_svirn: > Moreover, it was a SUCCESFUL assassination plot. And not only > Draco was implicated in it, he was instrumental to its success. > Branded or not, he has done more for the advancement of > Voldemort's cause than his father and aunt put together. Betsy Hp: True. And it's to Draco's credit (in a coldly intellectual way) that he was able to do the impossible and breach Hogwarts' security. Though I'm betting Voldemort will still punish (if not kill) Draco for failing to pull the trigger in the end. > >>a_svirn: > Yes, allowances for his age and family circumstances should be > made, but no jury in the Universe ? Potterverse included ? would > proclaim him innocent. Betsy Hp: Thank goodness for Dumbledore. Though I think Dumbledore was thinking a bit higher than the court of law. (I think a court of law would probably consider the death threat against his family a mitigating circumstance, especially if the case is presented well.) > >>Betsy Hp: > > When Draco *does* attempt to "deal death" as it were, his > > methods are *so* unsophisticated (especially compared to the > > Cabinet plan) as to suggest his heart really isn't > > in it. > >>a_svirn: > Really? And since when a murderer should be sophisticated to be > efficient? It's not thanks to Draco Kathy and Ron are still alive. Betsy Hp: But the two attempts were neither sophisticated nor efficient. Neither Katie nor Ron were the intended victim. Katie was actually the messenger, and when you kill your messenger before message delivery you've pretty much destroyed your plan. Compare that with the beauty of the Cabinet plan, opening a back door not even Dumbledore realizes exists, and it's pretty apparent (to me anyway) that Draco really didn't put much effort into the first two attempts. Betsy Hp From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Sep 9 22:52:13 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 22:52:13 -0000 Subject: Horcrux predictions (Was: JKR's Ambiguities) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139889 > Carol responds: > What we do know about his Horcruxes, at least from Dumbledore's > analysis, is that they're usually valuable in themselves and > significant to him personally, not to mention that they should last > forever or they're of no use in maintaining an *infinite* lifespan > (earthly immortality). Hickengruendler: As Harry correctly noted, the Diary is not valuable. Yes, it had a certain value for Voldemort personally, certainly more so than the Sorting Hat. But still, the Hat is a relic from the founders, and it has a certain worth as well, at least an historcial one. And Voldemort is interested in the Hogwarts history. Nagini, too, is not valuable except to Voldemort personally. I am aware that is not yet 100% proven that Nagini really is a Horcrux, but Dumbledore definitely seems to think that it is a realistic possibility. And The Hat already lasted longer than Nagini ever will. It may be old and patched, but there are no signs, that it won't be able to "live" for several more centuries. (Except if it is really a Horcrux and will be destroyed, of course ;-) ). Carol: > And note that > Diary!Tom treats it with utter contempt: "This is what Dumbledore > sends his defender! A songbird and an old hat!" (316) Hickengruendler: Yes, but does he really have contempt for the Hat itself or for the Hat as a weapon? I always understood this line this way: "Well, a Hat won't certainly be much help for you." That does not mean, that he disrespects it itself, but just the use in this situation. > Also, just because Harry spends long periods alone in > Dumbledore's office is no reason to assume that Tom did the same. > Harry as the Chosen One and Dumbledore's protege is very much a > special case. The conversation between Dippet and Tom in CoS (243- 45) > does not indicate a close acquaintance. Hickengruendler: But it's still possible. Also, didn't one of the DA members during their first meeting in the Hog's Head say, that one of the portraits in the office told him something. That seems he actually had some time with the portraits alone. But admittingly, Tom Riddle never was alone in the office. The portraits are there as well, and I think one of them would have told Dippet or at least later Dumbledore, if Tom did something very unusual with the sword or the Hat. At least after they heard about the Horcruxes. Carol: > (And would Tom have performed > the Horcrux incantation under the watchful eyes of the former > Headmasters? I can't imagine Portrait!Phineas sleeping through a Dark > incantation.) Hickengruendler: Yes, like I said, I think that's the biggest argument against the "Hat as a Horcrux theory". Which is a pity, because I really liked it. Carol: > Moreover, Harry uses both the Sorting Hat and the Sword of Gryffindor > to defeat Diary!Tom--the hat conceals the sword, which kills the > basilisk (whose fang Harry uses to destroy the diary). There's no sign > that Tom recognizes the sword or surely he would have said so. Hickengruendler: This, however, is easily explained. He made the diary earlier, before he learned about the Horcruxes and about the true value of the sword. Carol: > (Dippet's office is recognizably different from Dumbledore's even > though it's the same room. It contains the portraits but no Fawkes and > no silver instruments. Neither the sword nor the Sorting Hat is > mentioned.) Hickengruendler: But the Hat at least had to be there. The founders made it to get the students sorted. It can't have been anywhere else than in Hogwarts. And didn't Gryffindor himself put the sword in the Hat, with the mentioning, that only a true Gryffindor could draw it out of it? Therefore the sword hat to be in the Hat all the time, or am I misremembering this? From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 23:08:25 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 23:08:25 -0000 Subject: Believing Harry is not a Horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139890 Geoff wrote: > It's the structure where I may differ. As a Christian, I accept the > concept of "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all > your mind and with all your soul". > > To that end, I see the transfer of powers and memories that you list > as being intellectual - i.e. of the mind. I do not see them as being > to do with the soul and thus do not imagiane bits and pieces of > Voldemort's soul moving over to Harry. Perhaps, he retained two > pieces of torn soul in himself at that point. Saraquel: Up-thread I posted a detailed discussion of the soul in JKRs world being more akin to personality or psyche. It is not a view that I personally hold, but it is definitely a view which can be supported by canon. In your post Geoff, you don't say, based on my belief that JKR is working from a Christian viewpoint of the soul being .... but rather, you appear to me, to be disagreeing with the horcrux idea because you personally don't like it. Was that what you meant? As a general comment, I think, if we are speculating about the plot of the book, then we need to make the ideas consistent with canon, as per the rules of the list. I would genuinely be interested to read your canon support for your ideas Geoff. best wishes Saraquel From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 23:08:33 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 23:08:33 -0000 Subject: STWNSHH (was Size) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139891 > Ffred responded: > > Think about the logistics of accommodating around 30 times your > national population, even for a short time, the amount of resources, > food, etc that would be needed. It just wouldn't be feasible. > > ibchawz replies: > > I can agree with that. The MOM was in a bit of a panic over the > event. The people with "cheap seats" had to arrive 2 weeks in > advance due to the logistical problems with portkey travel. Amiable Dorsai: Nah, you're thinkg about it wrong. It's not the *wizarding* population of the UK that has to feed 100,000 or so extra mouths, it's the 60 million Muggles of the UK. That's who they would buy food and other non-magical supplies from--assuming they need to buy supplies locally at all. This comes down to the problem of Wizarding Economics, a subject that will hurt your brain if you think about it long enough. Just for example, given the trick that Harry pulled on Slughorn after Aragog's burial, why does any wizard ever buy more than one bottle of wine? Amiable Dorsai From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 23:20:30 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 23:20:30 -0000 Subject: Characters and the revelation model (Was: Re: Depth?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139893 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > But the smaller the amount of "screen time" the larger the impact > of every scene we do get to see. And a competent author realizes > this. In fact, in that sort of situation you'd best give a hint of > normal before throwing in abnormal so your reader gets a heads up > that something is amiss. The larger the impact of every scene--which means that a minimal amount of information can also cause maximal disruption. The less information you give, as well, the more the reader has to fill in the blank on his own--and the more likely he is to make mistakes. As well, 'normal' changes over time, from when characters are 15 to when they're 21 and married with kid. Open wartime could change 'normal' significantly. > No, I think JKR gave us the "normal" for the Marauders, including > pecking order, right up until the moment Sirius spotted Snape. > (Actually, I think the only "abnormal" bit of that scene was that > Snape was caught so unawares, but that's just IMO. ) So, here's a character question for you: why have we gotten such wildly contradictory information about Peter? Several characters denigrate his abilities and tell us that he's an incompetent, but I'll be damned if Peter hasn't been one of the most effective DEs running, in any number of ways. Is this incompetent character construction, or are we (and maybe other characters) being given the hints that things are not quite what we think they are? Likewise, we have some of the same contradictory information about other characters who we get comparatively little of in the present tense. It's up to each reader to untangle the mess for himself, and possibly muck up grandly in the process. Let's take James: arrogant obnoxious berk becomes the man who Lily marries and dies for his son. Some have postulated an essential continuity of character--but some have argued for a dramatic and radical change in him. JKR could drop either option into the mix at the moment. Correspondingly, we could be given information that really modifies our view of the Marauders' friendship, and could lead to our perspective on it being more of a solid, lasting, and deep thing. I hope I've made it clear how easily this could be done--if it's what she's interested in. -Nora thinks, from a literary point of view, that it would be both hilarious and ballsy if Spinner's End was mostly Snape telling the truth From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Sep 10 00:10:11 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 00:10:11 -0000 Subject: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort (was: Re: Draco's culpability...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139894 > Betsy Hp: > Harry just supposes that Draco shows Borgin his arm. He doesn't > actually *see* Draco do it. However, I agree that Draco is > exhibiting suspicious behavior, in both cases, that cannot be > explained away by POV. Jen: Ahh, very interesting. I had to re-read that section. The easy explanation is JKR made the reference to Draco's arm in the prior scene and doesn't want to give away the secret before Harry puts two- and-two together. But I'm feeling devious today and think the omissions are adding up. We can add this one to the two you pointed out before, that Draco did not cast the dark mark and he was on the tower prior to the spell allowing DE's with a dark mark to pass up the stairs. > Betsy Hp: > I totally discount the werewolf bite, myself. And since I'm > starting to really doubt that Draco does have a Dark Mark, I'll > have to go with door #3. > > There's two possibilities, I think. One is the "Draco faked the > Mark" thing. (I read a theory that he used one of the twins' > edible Dark Marks.) Or, it's a total red herring. Maybe he really > *was* poked by a pin. Though it does leave unanswered what he > used to scare Borgin with. > > JKR is definitely leaving the question up in the air though. And > since Draco *not* being marked would surprise Harry more, I tend > to lean in that direction. Jen: What *would* scare Borgin, that's the question isn't it? The dark mark doesn't sit well with me because it's hard to believe Borgin hasn't seen a whole lot worse, given his age and business dealings. "Yeah, yeah, some young punk just shoved a dark mark in my face, like I haven't seen *that* before." Especially after we watch oily Borgin interact with Lucius. Now Lucius would be someone to fear, for his money and power let alone his past affiliation with Voldemort, and Borgin basically made fun of him behind his back. The Hand of Glory is a non-starter, and Draco isn't in possession of the necklace yet (that one would scare me after seeing what happened to Katy with only a tiny pinprick in her glove). It would have to be something on Draco's person, or small enough to fit in his robes. You don't suppose Draco has some infomation on Borgin, do you? And he showed him a little reminder of the deed? Something sinister Borgin was involved with during the time Riddle was employed there, perhaps. Stolen dark magic objects, other suspicious deaths.... > Betsy Hp: > I feel like Draco's chances of survival have gone up, myself. But > I'd been worried that Draco would end up dying in order to see the > error of his ways. Fortunately, JKR was merciful, and it looks > like Draco saw the light without having to die for it. His life > is in Snape's hands now, but since I think Snape is ESG, I trust > Snape with the burden. *Snape's* life expectency however.... > *sigh* I'm worried. Jen: Yeah Snape's toast, whatever his status. The plot just begs for it, preferably before Harry & Co. figure out the truth about him so he dies an ignominious death. No, I'm really not a cruel person, just pondering what a fitting end would be for this character. There's a certain tragedy about his life that calls for a tragic death as well. Dying without ever getting the glory and honor he craves might suffice. He can enjoy it from the afterworld, or learn about it as a ghost roaming around Hogwarts and terrorizing all the students. Maybe Snape's death, after saving Harry yet again and Draco as well, will be enough penance for JKR so Draco doesn't have to die. Like you pointed out, it's her mercy that matters now ;). Jen From djklaugh at comcast.net Sat Sep 10 00:19:03 2005 From: djklaugh at comcast.net (Deb) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 00:19:03 -0000 Subject: The 24 hours and Harry's first Hogwarts dream (Was Re: First chapter of Book 7) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139895 > Deb (djklaugh)wrote: > "He was wearing Professor Quirrell's turban, (snip) -- and there was Malfoy, laughing at him as > he struggled with it -- and then Malfoy turned into the hook-nosed > teacher, Snape, (snip) > vmonte: > It's also interesting that first Malfoy and then Snape is wearing the > turbin. We know that Draco was not at Godric's Hollow that night > because he was a baby himself, so perhaps Harry's unconscious sees a > similarity in D & S's personality right away. (Snip) ummm, vmonte, there is nothing in the dream about Malfoy or Snape wearing the turban! Only Harry was wearing the turban(foreshadowing of LV getting into Harry's head in OOP?) and struggling with it in his dream. It appears from the way JKR wrote the dream that first Malfoy and then Snape were observing Harry as he struggled with the tightening turban .... and Malfoy and the person with the "high cold laugh" were finding his efforts very amusing. Deb From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Sat Sep 10 02:26:11 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 19:26:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ways to treat werewolf bites? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050910022611.30383.qmail@web53115.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139896 Molley wrote: [huge snip] Or is there a difference between "treating" a werewolf bite and "curing" it? Lyra: I think "treating" might indicate first-aid to be given right after a person is bitten. (Later we learn the recurring effects of the bite can be treated by Wolfsbane Potion, but alas, there is no cure -- once bitten, always a werewolf, or always someone "with a furry little problem"). Juli: You're right Lyra, most diseases in our world have Treatment, few of them have a cure. Justo to give you an exemple, High Blood Pressure is easily treated, but it can't be cured (at least not with the medical knoledge of today). I think what the sentence refers to is, like you said, a first aid treatment, possibly antibiotics to keep the unjury from infecting. Lycantrophy can be treated, there's the Wolfsbane potion, it effectively treats "werewolfness", but it doesn't cure it. Like insulin, it treats really well a diabetic, but it doesn't heal. 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! SPONSORED LINKS Adult learning Adult education Harry potter tie Harry potter hat J k rowling Harry potter book 6 --------------------------------- YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "HPforGrownups" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPforGrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- Juli Aol: jlnbtr Yahoo: jlnbtr --------------------------------- Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jmrazo at hotmail.com Sat Sep 10 02:46:19 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 02:46:19 -0000 Subject: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort (was: Re: Draco's culpability...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139897 > Betsy Hp: > I agree with everything except that last part. Draco obviously > expected Death Eaters to arrive once he'd restored the Cabinet, and > I believe I've stated that I'm aware of that. One thing I don't think I heard you say was what sort of punishment Draco should recieve for his actions. Even if there were mitigating circumstances there should be a consequence to his actions. After all, it wasn't like he was being held at gunpoint. He kept up his actions even after he was safely behind the wards of hogwarts and he could have gone to dumbledore at any time. Should he have his wand snapped? should he be imprisoned? What should happen to him according to you? > Betsy Hp: > Yes. And yet, one in which Draco gains no lethal skills. That > interests me. Just as it interests me that, though the end is > assassination, the means is so very benign. Ummm...assassination, no matter the mechanism, is never benign. It's methodical murder. > Betsy Hp: > True. And it's to Draco's credit (in a coldly intellectual way) > that he was able to do the impossible and breach Hogwarts' > security. Though I'm betting Voldemort will still punish (if not > kill) Draco for failing to pull the trigger in the end. While I am the first one to say that Draco is smarter than I gave him credit for I think Draco's success is more due to Dumbledore's failure than his own intellect. As much as I like Dumbledore there was no excuse for letting him continue on his mission when his every act either directly or indirectly put his students and faculty in danger. Two of his students very nearly died. It was totally irresponsible to allow Draco to continue just because none of his plans had not yet led to an actual death. > Betsy Hp: > Thank goodness for Dumbledore. Why thank goodness for Dumbledore? Dumbledore has no authority to give forgiveness or pass a benediction to Draco. The only people who can do that are the ones he hurt or nearly killed. What would Bill, Ron, and Katie think of Dumbledore calling Draco an *innocent* and trying to get him into hiding so he can avoid the consequences of his actions? > Betsy Hp: > But the two attempts were neither sophisticated nor efficient. > Neither Katie nor Ron were the intended victim. Katie was actually > the messenger, and when you kill your messenger before message > delivery you've pretty much destroyed your plan. Does the fact that they were inefficient matter? He still attemped to kill dumbledore and nearly did kill two other people. that is quite a bit of blood regardless of efficiency. > Compare that with the beauty of the Cabinet plan, opening a back > door not even Dumbledore realizes exists, and it's pretty apparent > (to me anyway) that Draco really didn't put much effort into the > first two attempts. I don't think the cabinet plan was part of the dumbledore murderplot. seems to me that they were two different battle plans. Even with Dumbledore dead, there were still wards enough to make it difficult to get into hogwarts so the vanishing cabinet was still needed either way. I think the attempts were genuine good faith attmepts on Dumbledore's life, but after they failed he probably hoped the distraction of the death eaters getting into the castle would let him get close enough to knock DD off. phoenixgod2000 From donnawonna at worldnet.att.net Sat Sep 10 02:48:58 2005 From: donnawonna at worldnet.att.net (Donna) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 22:48:58 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: New thought on Horcrux Message-ID: <4322499A.000010.03028@D33LDD51> No: HPFGUIDX 139898 Please bare with me. This is kinda complicated and I'm not good at explaining things. We, based on DD assumptions, feel that LV divided his soul into 7 parts. What makes us think those parts are equal? When LV made is first horcrux (diary), did he only put in 1/7 of his soul? Would he have the ability to split his soul that exactly? How could he have been certain he would not have been interrupted before completing his task? It seems to me that the first time he made a horcrux he would have divided his soul in 1/2. The second horcrux would have been 1/2 of the remain 1/2 soul in his body. So, horcrux #2 would have 1/4 of LV soul. Horcrux #3 = 1/8, etc. What we would get are: Horcrux #1 = 1/2 soul (diary) " #2 = 1/4 " #3 = 1/8 " #4 = 1/16 " #5 = 1/32 " #6 = 1/64 " #7 = 1/128 (Voldemort) If my thinking is correct, then Harry has already destroyed 1/2 LV soul when Harry destroyed the diary, assuming, of course, the diary was the first horcrux. DD has destroyed another part but I'm not sure what # horcrux the ring would be. If my thinking is correct, then there is less that 1/2 of LV soul still out there to be located and destroyed even if it is in bits and pieces. Thoughts? Corrections? Comments? All are anxiously awaited and more than welcome. I haven't been able to keep up with the posts, but I don't recall seeing anything along these lines. Donna [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Sep 10 03:17:37 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 03:17:37 -0000 Subject: New thought on Horcrux In-Reply-To: <4322499A.000010.03028@D33LDD51> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139899 Donna: > Please bare with me. This is kinda complicated and I'm not good at > explaining things. > > We, based on DD assumptions, feel that LV divided his soul into 7 parts. > What makes us think those parts are equal? *(snip)* Ceridwen: My first impression was that a soul tore unevenly. Like a piece of paper. No matter how hard you try, if you don't deliberately fold it, or have good luck or lots of experience, you don't get even pieces. You might even have pieces that shear off to points. I got the impression of old, rotting curtains, in fact. But, if it's possible to pre-determine how much soul is torn off, then Voldemort might have deliberately divided them into sevenths, as his intention was to create seven horcruxes (or, six and himself). Still, Voldemort has possibly killed more than seven people (or, six, leaving that one bit of soul for himself). Which leaves quite a few pieces of torn soul. It isn't the intention to create a horcrux which tears the soul, but murder. Hang on... >From GoF, Priori Incantatem, beginning page 665, first, Wormtail's hand, then Cedric Diggory, then Frank Bryce, Bertha Jorkins, Lily Potter, finally James Potter, all emerge from the wand. Voldemort's father and grandparents don't. Neither does Moaning Myrtle, but then, she wasn't killed by wand. That makes nine, not counting Wormtail's hand, and any more that didn't come out between James and the Riddles. I was just wondering if he'd only killed six or seven. I'd forgotten about Bertha Jorkins and Moaning Myrtle... So, Voldemort's soul is split into at least the nine pieces that we know of. So, I doubt if he consciously sized the splits. I *think* he killed at least Myrtle (with the Basilisk, in the girls' toilet) before understanding about horcruxes and how to make them. Still, I got the impression that the soul tears unevenly. Maybe the relative importance of the deceased has something to do with it, maybe it's just that souls tear unevenly. Ceridwen. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Sep 10 01:26:25 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 01:26:25 -0000 Subject: Voldemort good/bad. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139900 Rebecca wrote: "But I do have to stress that an upbringing such as (Tom's) is not guaranteed to bring about the development of a psychopath." Del replies: Agreed, absolutely. >From what I gathered, the creation of a psychopath apparently requires the combination of three elements: 1. A wrong nature 2. A wrong nurture 3. A wrong opportunity Tom had all three of them, according to canon: 1. His inborn nature was not normal. We are told that he didn't cry much as a baby, and the feeling I get from the orphanage's director's explanations is that he always made his caretakers slightly uneasy. 2. As we discussed previously, he most probably never had a true chance of bonding and experiencing love. 3. He was powerfully magical, and he had nobody to keep a check on him, so he was able very early in life to exert his power on others. Had any one of those three circumstances been different, things would probably have turned very differently. Rebecca wrote: "Yet (David Pelzer) has somehow managed to become a normal and emotionally sound individual, fully capable of love and generosity. A lack of love at a young age can bring about some terrible problems, but it is not certain that this will happen, as David Pelzer can testify." Del replies: I think that David Pelzer probably did have problems (though I am not implying psychopathic traits, don't get me wrong), but that he found it in himself to overcome them. I can't imagine that someone with his background wouldn't have any problems at all. His books sound fascinating by the way. Rebecca wrote: "I still maintain that Harry would not have become like Voldemort if he had been raised in Tom Riddle's stead. Neither would Tom Riddle have become a brave and generous boy like Harry if he'd been loved for 14 months and then raised by the Dursley's." Del replies: I don't think there's any way we can know for sure. The second proposal I very much agree with, because I think that it would have taken much more than 14 months of love to correct the faults in Tom's inborn personality, and also that he would have had to be raised in a wizarding family all his youth, so his use of magic would be kept under control. But as for Harry... He has a strong capacity to hate when he wants to, his father was quite a bully, his maternal aunt isn't a model of niceness either. So I don't know what kind of inborn personality he was born with. We also have reasons to believe that a significant part of the love he feels now comes from his mother, not from himself. And when under the strong negative influence of LV in OoP, he did give in once in a while to his anger and even to cruelty. He even goes as far as threatening to use magic on his Muggle cousin, which is disturbingly reminiscent of what Tom did as a child (probably not a coincidence, though). So between the many, various, and sometimes diametrically opposed influences Harry is living under, I find it pretty hard to determine what exactly Harry's own original personality looked like. But if I had to bet, I'd say he didn't have the right nature to become a psychopath. Things like the way he instinctively offered to share with Ron in the train in PS/SS make me feel like his innate nature is too much on the good side to be perverted to the point of psychopathy. Rebecca wrote: "But I cannot think of any circumstances under which Tom Riddle could have been raised to produce a 'nice', 'brave', 'selfless' or 'caring' person. I don't believe that it was in his nature." Del replies: Once again, we will never know. But I think it is too harsh a condemnation to say that some kids out there will never be any of those things, no matter what kind of help and upbringing they receive! Being nice, brave, selfless and caring are not just things that one can have as an innate makeup. They can all be learned. Most people do have to learn one or several of those qualities, in fact. Many unpleasant kids learn to be nice when they feel loved and appreciated. Many scaredy people learn to be brave when they find the right support to accompany them. Many ego-centric people learn to be selfless when somehow forced to engage in service projects. And many cold people learn to be caring, when thrown in many different situations. There's no way I would say that even a kid like Tom couldn't learn those things, and learn to like them too! Isn't it what "A Christmas Carol" is about after all? About the fact that even the most embittered, cold-hearted people can change? And my Christian values most definitely support the concept that *everyone* can change their nature, if they can find the right kind of help before it is too late. JMO, of course, Del From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 10 03:20:30 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 03:20:30 -0000 Subject: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort / and Albus and Harry and Snape again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139901 > > Betsy Hp: > > Thank goodness for Dumbledore. Phoenixgod: > Why thank goodness for Dumbledore? Dumbledore has no authority to > give forgiveness or pass a benediction to Draco. The only people who > can do that are the ones he hurt or nearly killed. What would Bill, > Ron, and Katie think of Dumbledore calling Draco an *innocent* and > trying to get him into hiding so he can avoid the consequences of his > actions? Alla: Hmmm, I agree with you, Phoenixgod, well sort of. If one looks at Dumbledore as G-dlike figure, he can grant forgiveness, but since I look at him as human, I am in agreement with you. It is sort of not his decision to make, IMO. On the other hand, Draco WAS planning assasination attempt at Dumbledore, so at least as I see it Albus can forgive Draco for what he was about to do to Albus at least( but definitely not to Ron and Katie, IMO) Albus' conversation with Harry about Snape, when Harry learned that Snape delivered prophecy to Voldemort strikes me as assuming too much, because IMO Albus had no right to try to convince Harry that Snape was remorseful about what he did and Harry had a right to be as angry as he wanted to. It is not Albus' decision to forgive Snape for that, it is Harry's and Harry's only IMO. JMO of course, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 10 03:35:10 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 03:35:10 -0000 Subject: Characters and the revelation model (Was: Re: Depth?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139902 > >>Nora: > The larger the impact of every scene--which means that a minimal > amount of information can also cause maximal disruption. The less > information you give, as well, the more the reader has to fill in > the blank on his own--and the more likely he is to make mistakes. Betsy Hp: So James really *is* retiring and shy? Yes, the best way to build up to a big reveal is to leave blank spaces and allow the reader to assume. But the author is unwise to lie. And you seem to be suggesting that JKR lied. That we should ignore everything that occured during the pensieve flashback. That seems...wasteful to me. If it's all untrue, why write it to begin with? > >>Nora: > As well, 'normal' changes over time, from when characters are 15 to > when they're 21 and married with kid. Open wartime could > change 'normal' significantly. Betsy Hp: Was Sirius completely unrecognizable in the pensieve? Was Remus? Was Snape, for that matter? Is the Harry of PS/SS so totally different from the Harry of HBP? And is the man who walked bravely to his death in order to buy time for his family so completely different from the brash James of the pensieve, or even the shadowy hero of the Prank? > >>Nora: > So, here's a character question for you: why have we gotten such > wildly contradictory information about Peter? Several characters > denigrate his abilities and tell us that he's an incompetent, but > I'll be damned if Peter hasn't been one of the most effective DEs > running, in any number of ways. Betsy Hp: In a very "Peter" way though, yes? And doesn't the "cult of personality" worshiping boy of the pensieve fit with the cringing man in Snape's study? And it's interesting that he searched out Voldemort only *after* his cozy little hidey-hole was exposed. Peter, though not as creatively clever as James and Sirius, *does* manage to keep up with his friends. So I'm not surprised at his level of competence. I certainly wouldn't call the information on Peter contradictory. > >>Nora: > Is this incompetent character construction, or are we (and maybe > other characters) being given the hints that things are not quite > what we think they are? Betsy Hp: Peter is a hard one to judge by, because we already know what he will become. We worked backwords with him. But if we take other characters whose story arcs are complete I think JKR shows that she doesn't rely on cheats to maintain the element of surprise. Was the Quirrell reveal, though a surprise, completely out of the blue? Was it a stretch to see Umbridge about to cast an unforgivable on a student? Even Fake!Moody was hinted at, IMO. (Frankly, the hardest part of the Fake!Moody reveal for me was dealing with the real Moody.) > >>Nora: > Likewise, we have some of the same contradictory information about > other characters who we get comparatively little of in the present > tense. It's up to each reader to untangle the mess for himself, > and possibly muck up grandly in the process. Let's take James: > arrogant obnoxious berk becomes the man who Lily marries and dies > for his son. Some have postulated an essential continuity of > character--but some have argued for a dramatic and radical change > in him. JKR could drop either option into the mix at the moment. Betsy Hp: JKR certainly leaves enough holes to allow a reader to go astray. But I really don't think she cheats in what she does definitively state. With James, obviously there's a change from the boy we see in the pensieve and the future head boy. But I'm quite confident that the change will not be so drastic as to render the boy in the pensieve a falsehood. His character will maintain continuity, he'll just take it in a more positive direction. > >>Nora: > Correspondingly, we could be given information that really modifies > our view of the Marauders' friendship, and could lead to our > perspective on it being more of a solid, lasting, and deep thing. > I hope I've made it clear how easily this could be done--if it's > what she's interested in. Betsy Hp: I'm quite sure the friendship between James and Sirius was solid. But we've already been shown that Peter was a different story. It will take a whole hell of a lot to suddenly turn him noble and true. And since I doubt book 7 will be "Harry Potter and the Redemption of Wormtail" I have a hard time seeing that happening. Remus, of course, still has his issues. I'll be interested in seeing where JKR takes him. He has yet to demonstrate true strength of character, IMO (he's still the boy sitting tight-lipped under the tree), but that moment could well be coming. (In a sense Remus is JKR's other dark horse.) > >>Nora: > -Nora thinks, from a literary point of view, that it would be both > hilarious and ballsy if Spinner's End was mostly Snape telling the > truth Betsy Hp: Well that's because you don't like him, Nora! You're strangely immune to the Snape-mojo. (And Snape was telling a good bit of the truth in Spinner's End. It's the best way to disguise the lie. ) Betsy Hp From jmrazo at hotmail.com Sat Sep 10 03:49:09 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 03:49:09 -0000 Subject: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort / and Albus and Harry and Snape again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139903 > Alla: > > Hmmm, I agree with you, Phoenixgod, well sort of. If one looks at > Dumbledore as G-dlike figure, he can grant forgiveness, but since I > look at him as human, I am in agreement with you. It is sort of not > his decision to make, IMO. absolutely. JKR even says in one of her interviews that DD isn't a metaphor for jesus and even he admits to his own falibility so I think he neatly cuts off his own confessional authority. > On the other hand, Draco WAS planning assasination attempt at > Dumbledore, so at least as I see it Albus can forgive Draco for what > he was about to do to Albus at least( but definitely not to Ron and > Katie, IMO) I'll go with that. > Albus' conversation with Harry about Snape, when Harry learned that > Snape delivered prophecy to Voldemort strikes me as assuming too > much, because IMO Albus had no right to try to convince Harry that > Snape was remorseful about what he did and Harry had a right to be > as angry as he wanted to. It is not Albus' decision to forgive > Snape for that, it is Harry's and Harry's only IMO. Amen Alla. makes me wonder what would have happend if Harry had seen that memory in the occulmency lessons during his fiesty fifth year. Could you imagine the blow up? phoenixgod2000 From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Sep 10 03:57:05 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 03:57:05 -0000 Subject: Characters and the revelation model (Was: Re: Depth?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139904 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > So James really *is* retiring and shy? Yes, the best way to > build up to a big reveal is to leave blank spaces and allow the > reader to assume. But the author is unwise to lie. And you seem > to be suggesting that JKR lied. That we should ignore everything > that occured during the pensieve flashback. That seems...wasteful > to me. If it's all untrue, why write it to begin with? Not lying. Complicating. We keep open the idea that the Pensieve scene is a snapshot of one aspect of character, one point in time-- but we are very wary of the assumption that we're going to extrapolate that to cover all situations. You seem very comfortable using one scene as the baseline for all formulations of character, and linking up the similarities smoothly. In situations with such little information, what you get depends on how you read--you want similarities, you get them; you want differences, you get them too. > Betsy Hp: > Was Sirius completely unrecognizable in the pensieve? Was Remus? > Was Snape, for that matter? Is the Harry of PS/SS so totally > different from the Harry of HBP? And is the man who walked bravely > to his death in order to buy time for his family so completely > different from the brash James of the pensieve, or even the shadowy > hero of the Prank? Completely--no. Even 'innocent' Draco of HBP is still the insufferable obnoxious little shit of the first book. :) But I can certainly think of points in time when we shouldn't take what we'd see at that one point as *the* model of extrapolation for the character. Ron isn't utterly defined by his jealousy of Harry, nor is Hermione always unforgiving and utterly convinced of her rightness. That's the seriation problem: you can't make a pattern out of one incident. > Betsy Hp: > JKR certainly leaves enough holes to allow a reader to go astray. > But I really don't think she cheats in what she does definitively > state. With James, obviously there's a change from the boy we see > in the pensieve and the future head boy. But I'm quite confident > that the change will not be so drastic as to render the boy in the > pensieve a falsehood. His character will maintain continuity, > he'll just take it in a more positive direction. Okay, so we're left with a kind of genteel 'he changed' with no causal element. Oh, passive and indeterminate constructions are so much fun--there's this great quip by Wittgenstein about... Again, I've never asked for 'falsification', although there are aspects of character that could well be solidly falsified by the ending of the series. But I think we could get enough to render one of the propositions way back, "The Marauders didn't have a genuine friendship, it was a myth" falsified. > Betsy Hp: > I'm quite sure the friendship between James and Sirius was solid. > But we've already been shown that Peter was a different story. It > will take a whole hell of a lot to suddenly turn him noble and > true. And since I doubt book 7 will be "Harry Potter and the > Redemption of Wormtail" I have a hard time seeing that happening. I'm willing to bet even odds at the present that Wormtail is up for *some* kind of redemption. What could well happen is that the postulated qualities of friendship which were fragmented by war and pressure are recovered. We've had an explicit mention in book of Wormtail and a debt, as well as interview confirmation that there's something to it. I dunno what, but this is one eminently open possibility for the resolution of that plot line. >> -Nora thinks, from a literary point of view, that it would be both >> hilarious and ballsy if Spinner's End was mostly Snape telling the >> truth > > Betsy Hp: > Well that's because you don't like him, Nora! You're strangely > immune to the Snape-mojo. (And Snape was telling a good bit of the > truth in Spinner's End. It's the best way to disguise the lie. ) Snape, post-GoF, has made it pretty hard to like him (when I really very much wanted to like him before OotP). But I'd like it most of all from the literary perspective. I like the hiding things in plain sight approach, the readers hanging themselves with their own rope (and then screaming, as have the shippers, that the author is evil and mean and callous even though she doesn't matter). We've made so much out of this character and invented complications that don't actually exist...it would just be so *funny* to have it end up much simpler. -Nora recommends 'Act of Reading' to everyone out there From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 10 04:04:46 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 04:04:46 -0000 Subject: Characters and the revelation model (Was: Re: Depth?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139905 > Betsy Hp: But if we take other > characters whose story arcs are complete I think JKR shows that she > doesn't rely on cheats to maintain the element of surprise. Alla: One word - Ginny. Now, I love her and Harry together and I swallowed new Ginny, because I muttered to myself that Harry did not really notice her and that is why everything is possible, but I really did not see any signs of new Ginny prior to OOP. I mean we have that "she never shuts up" of course, but that was truly not enough for me and while I don't consider it to be cheating, I find it the true example of revelation mode Nora was talking about. JMO, Alla From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Sep 10 04:33:05 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 04:33:05 -0000 Subject: Killing tears the soul apart redux. WAS: Re: Snape's penance? In-Reply-To: <700201d40509090658128b2497@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139906 #139858 >Kemper: ...Makes me wonder what Snape's other way of dealing with Dementor's is. The Patronus is a wonderful charm for pushing Dementors away, it doesn't really defeat them in the long run. What if Snape's other way of dealing with Dementors converts/transforms/transfigures the Dementor back to a Soul? This way could be more dangerous because of the magic involved, distance required, or something else: making Harry think that the Patronus is a better option for many of the students. vmonte responds: He probably had to come up with a different way because he has no happy memories to create a patronus. #139876 >a_svirn: First you call it "non-lethal activity" that led to "events on the Tower" now it's a "non-marital exercise". You make it sound as though Draco was just mulling over an interesting scientific problem, when the Death Eaters came forth from the cabinet as if out of the cornucopia. The truth is, however, that it was an assassination plot, one that was devised and executed by Draco. Moreover, it was a SUCCESFUL assassination plot. And not only Draco was implicated in it, he was instrumental to its success. Branded or not, he has done more for the advancement of Voldemort's cause than his father and aunt put together. Yes, allowances for his age and family circumstances should be made, but no jury in the Universe ? Potterverse included ? would proclaim him innocent. vmonte: Nice post, I agree. Draco has the dark mark. >phoenixgod2000: Why thank goodness for Dumbledore? Dumbledore has no authority to give forgiveness or pass a benediction to Draco. The only people who can do that are the ones he hurt or nearly killed. What would Bill, Ron, and Katie think of Dumbledore calling Draco an *innocent* and trying to get him into hiding so he can avoid the consequences of his actions? vmonte: Good point! #139748 & 139885 >Lady Indigo: I'm so glad I get to address this theory on here. A lot of what you've said here is almost word for word from John Granger at hogwartsprofessor.com and I thought it was pretty much nonsense then, too. A lot of the 'evidence' behind this theory ignores or twists the canon, which explains and even outright disproves some of it. vmonte: I agree with you. Mr. granger is now trying to prove that Snape is part vampire. Get it - Half Prince of Darkness. >Lady Indigo: I also think that if Rowling abandons a highly realistic, interesting character for the old 'Slytherins are evil and watch out for the new teacher' ploy, I'll be starting to lose my trust in her. vmonte: I feel the same way here. It makes more sense that Draco is talking about Zabini, Pansi, and probably someone from a different house. She'll probably show a bad kid from another house. What was the name of that kid that competed with Ron for Keeper? #139795 >Nora: I'd offer the proposal that there are many things in the series which JKR as the author *intends* to be taken at their face value, and accepted by the reader. Correspondingly, this means that the subversive readings (which do not accept these things) are highly unlikely to receive any validation or confirmation in canon. Of course, nothing can stop the determined theorist. vmonte: If you notice in book 6 everything that Harry claims is true. Not one person believed him. The answers he gets back from the different Order members sounds a lot like people who can't see anvil size hints. Also, it's interesting that Zabini's mother is a sexual predator. She's been married "7" times and each man dies mysteriously. (Black widow spider comes to mind.) I think this kid is a sexual predator too. #139895 >Deb: Ummm, vmonte, there is nothing in the dream about Malfoy or Snape wearing the turban! Only Harry was wearing the turban(foreshadowing of LV getting into Harry's head in OOP?) and struggling with it in his dream. It appears from the way JKR wrote the dream that first Malfoy and then Snape were observing Harry as he struggled with the tightening turban .... and Malfoy and the person with the "high cold laugh" were finding his efforts very amusing. vmonte: Thanks Deb, I didn't have access to the books to go over that scene. So, what do you think Snape was doing there? #139857 >Derek: Just a correction regarding Chapter 17 of PS/SS. The title of the chapter is "The Man with Two Faces", although I'm going by Philosopher's stone - Sorcerer's Stone may be different. vmonte Oooops! Thanks. And I said The Two Faced Man, right? #139893 >Nora thinks, from a literary point of view, that it would be both hilarious and ballsy if Spinner's End was mostly Snape telling the truth. vmonte: Me too. #139894 Jen: What *would* scare Borgin, that's the question isn't it? The dark mark doesn't sit well with me because it's hard to believe Borgin hasn't seen a whole lot worse, given his age and business dealings. "Yeah, yeah, some young punk just shoved a dark mark in my face, like I haven't seen *that* before." Especially after we watch oily Borgin interact with Lucius. Now Lucius would be someone to fear, for his money and power let alone his past affiliation with Voldemort, and Borgin basically made fun of him behind his back. vmonte: Really Jen? I think Borgin would be afraid if Draco showed him the dark mark. Haven't several people died and/or disappeared recently? Doesn't having the mark mean that you belong to that particular group? Vivian From jmrazo at hotmail.com Sat Sep 10 05:03:58 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:03:58 -0000 Subject: Characters and the revelation model (Was: Re: Depth?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139909 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Betsy Hp: > > But if we take other > > characters whose story arcs are complete I think JKR shows that > she > > doesn't rely on cheats to maintain the element of surprise. > > > Alla: > > One word - Ginny. Now, I love her and Harry together and I swallowed > new Ginny, because I muttered to myself that Harry did not really > notice her and that is why everything is possible, but I really did > not see any signs of new Ginny prior to OOP. Does my heart good to read that from you Alla :) Remember to focus on the hate...always the hate. phoenixgod2000 From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Sep 10 06:10:25 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 06:10:25 -0000 Subject: Killing tears the soul apart redux. WAS: Re: Snape's penance? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139910 > vmonte responds: > He probably had to come up with a different way because he has no > happy memories to create a patronus. > zgirnius: Isn't this how he communicates with others in the Order? Seems like he would have to be able to do this... From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Sep 10 06:38:45 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 06:38:45 -0000 Subject: The graveyard at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: <20050909131615.90498.qmail@web51808.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139911 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, LINDA BUDD wrote: > > Ginger: > > So if there is a graveyard there, who's buried in > > it? Surely the founders would count as heads. If > > it isn't done for heads, then it must not be for > > teachers too. Students would be buried with family, > > which leaves....House Elves? Linda: > There is no graveyard at Hogwarts, and houselves > heads are mounted on their masters' walls (like deer > heads) when they die; I believe that was in book > 4, Black's castle. DD was the only person to be laid > to rest at Hogwarts. Geoff: But somewhere lurking in the back of my mind is the belief that I saw a reference to a comment from JKR when Alfonso Cuaran wanted to have a graveyard scene in the film version of Azkaban. IIRC he was told that he could not have it where he wanted it because there was a graveyard at Hogwarts but in a different part of the school grounds. I shall now genuflect abjectly to the elves for referring to the medium which dare not speak its name From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Sep 10 06:52:12 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 06:52:12 -0000 Subject: What Snape Knows WAS Re: Depth? Things to take on their face value In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139912 > Jen: OK Nora, I exaggerated saying Snape would know *every* plan. > JKR told us DD has no confidante, no equal--true. Saying Snape > doesn't know every plan hardly negates the information he could take > to Voldemort if he is truly serving him now. > Valky: I am not sure how relevant you will find this, but I've always been fairly confident that Dumbledore give Snape specific information to pass to Voldemort. As a spy, notwithstanding what his true loyalties were, he was definitely passing information to Dumbledore IMO. It doesn't seem above and beyond to assume that Voldemort finding out about Lucius and the Diary got to DD through Snape, or to assume that both Dumbledore and Voldemort were receiving at the very least, useful and wanted information from Snape. Lets put it this way, if Snape wasn't bringing Dumbledore a respectable amount of important information, then in DD's eyes the risk to his life would start to outweigh the balance and he'd be taken off the job and given some other duty to perform. Likewise if Voldemort considered Snapes information to be of little or no value to him, there is a spell to fix that problem. It's one thing to be close to and trusted by the enemy, it's entirely another to use that position to advantage. So I have come to the conclusion that Dumbledore handed Snape information, in one way or another, deliberately. The kind of information that would keep Voldemorts curiosity in check and help to keep-up the smokescreen of Snape being truly Voldies man, and Voldie having the best of him. Whether or not Snape is DD's man through and through, Snapes Double agent status is a strategy of Dumbledores hence Dumbledore would work it to his advantage. This must be done, or else what use is a double agent anyway? What this line of thought eventually leads me to is the reason that Snape ordered the DE's not to kill Harry. I submit that Dumbledore conspired for some of the prophecy to be leaked to Voldemort, or at least an interpretation of it, enough so that Snape could provide Voldie incentive to believe that a very great threat to him would be Harry dying at the hand of another. Just enough to keep Harry alive for one more round and indeed the very thing to help Snape survive a rampaging Voldie who has just lost the prophecy forever. This, to me, seems a Dumbledorish thing to do. If I am right, then Voldie has been told either must die at the hand of the other. There is a problem with this in that it is a ticking time bomb, enough to forestall Voldie making an attempt on Harry for a short while, but also, I think a crucial piece of the prophecy from which Voldemort could probably figure out what is going on somewhere down the track.. with any luck too late. Yes I know that it's speculation, but I am far from giving up believing in Dumbledores plan just because he died. I think that there is strategy underlying the plot of HBP, from both sides, Voldemorts strategy is explained to us by Dumbledore (apart from it being fairly obvious too), and this is the strategy I think Dumbledore would use to counter it. Valky From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sat Sep 10 09:39:52 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 09:39:52 -0000 Subject: Characters and the revelation model (Was: Re: Depth?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139914 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > vmonte: > > Even if you look at some of the different penseive memories/diary > memories we've seen, we never get a full understanding of the > characters based on just one memory. > > Barty Crouch Jr. - Pleads with his father for mercy during his trial. > Junior claims he is innocent, we later find out he is not. > > Tom Riddle - Good Kid, star pupil, awarded for Services to the School. > > Hagrid is responsible for opening the Chamber. > We later find out that Hagrid is not the one that opened the chamber. > > Vivian Hickengruendler: First of all, I want to apologize for my previous "post". I accidentily hit the "sent" button before posting my thoughts. Maybe a moderator could please delete my previous post? Thanks in advance. Now on-topic: IMO, vmonte, the example you delivered are not the same as what Betsy meant. Neither of the characters you mentioned in your post changed. Tom Riddle and Crouch jr were simply good actors. They seemed likeable, because they managed to hide their real personalities. This is really the last thing you could accuse the Marauders of, making themselves look better in that scene, than they really were. And Hagrid was exactly the same guy he still is. The good natured but not very bright half-giant, who has a liking for monsters. We got some wrong informations, that made these characters look better or worse than they really were for a moment. But they did not change. From lily_paige_delaney at yahoo.com Sat Sep 10 10:17:11 2005 From: lily_paige_delaney at yahoo.com (lily_paige_delaney) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 10:17:11 -0000 Subject: JKR interviews - Harry will be at Hogwarts in book 7 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139915 After reading some early interviews I'm more confident about Harry being at Hogwarts at some stage and in some capacity in book 7. Some intersting quotes from JKR to support this: In Book 7, he will become a full wizard, and free to use his magic outside school. (Barnes and Noble interview, March 19, 1999) As I imagine it, there will be seven years at wizard's school, then Harry is a fully qualified wizard and it is then that he's allowed to use magic outside school. So, you'll see him into his final year at Hogwarts. (O'Malley, Judy. "Talking With . . . J.K. Rowling," Book Links, July 1999) I have another question on that. How many more books are there? I had this discussion with my step daughter yesterday. Will there be 7 books for the 7 years of school? JKR: Exactly, there will be 7 books. Oh, there is 7. All right!! JKR: Yeah, one for each of his years at Hogwarts, yeah (J.K. Rowling interview transcript, The Connection (WBUR Radio), 12 October, 1999) Is it true you're doing 7 books, one for each year that Harry will be at Hogwarts? A. Yes, it is true. (chat transcript, Scholastic.com, 3 February 2000) Did you always plan to write Harry's story in more than one book? If so, how many? I always conceived it as a 7-book series because I decided that it would take seven years from the ages of 11-17 inclusive, to train as a wizard, and each of the books would deal with a year of Harry's life at Hogwarts. (eToys interview transcript, etoys.com, Fall 2000) Yahooligan_joel asks: is there going to be a harry potter when he is in his 5,6,7 years at hogwarts? jkrowling_bn: Yes, those years will be covered by the final three books (Barnes and Noble & Yahoo! chat with J.K. Rowling, barnesandnoble.com, 20 October, 2000) Harryp: When did you decide there would be 7? Right from the start? Yes, I always planned seven books, one for each of Harry's years at Hogwarts. (Comic Relief live chat transcript, March 2001) LPD From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sat Sep 10 10:34:30 2005 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 06:34:30 -0400 Subject: Ginny's life debt (was Re: Depth? Things to take on their face value) Message-ID: <005601c5b5f3$3a904160$23c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 139916 Pippin >>Snape knows that Ginny owes Harry her life and has been seen with him quite a bit lately. CathyD: According to JKR, Ginny doesn't owe Harry her life. There is no life debt in place there as there is with Harry and Wormtail. "MA: Does she [Ginny] have a life debt to Harry from book two? JKR: No, not really. Wormtail is different. You know, part of me would just love to explain the whole thing to you, plot of book seven, you know, I honestly would." [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From troelsfo at yahoo.dk Sat Sep 10 11:34:09 2005 From: troelsfo at yahoo.dk (Troels Forchhammer) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 13:34:09 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ginny's life debt (was Re: Depth? Things to take on their face value) In-Reply-To: <005601c5b5f3$3a904160$23c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20050910133030.020bf780@pop3.norton.antivirus> No: HPFGUIDX 139917 At 06:34 10-09-05 -0400, Cathy Drolet wrote: >Pippin > >> Snape knows that Ginny owes Harry her life and has been seen with > >> him quite a bit lately. > >CathyD: >According to JKR, Ginny doesn't owe Harry her life. There is no >life debt in place there as there is with Harry and Wormtail. > > >"MA: Does she [Ginny] have a life debt to Harry from book two? >JKR: No, not really. Wormtail is different. You know, part of > me would just love to explain the whole thing to you, plot > of book seven, you know, I honestly would." This, however, doesn't mean that Ginny doesn't owe Harry a /moral/ debt -- only that it isn't magically enforced. Troels Forchhammer From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Sep 10 12:09:50 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:09:50 -0000 Subject: Characters and the revelation model (Was: Re: Depth?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139920 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139912 >Valky: What this line of thought eventually leads me to is the reason that Snape ordered the DE's not to kill Harry. I submit that Dumbledore conspired for some of the prophecy to be leaked to Voldemort, or at least an interpretation of it, enough so that Snape could provide Voldie incentive to believe that a very great threat to him would be Harry dying at the hand of another. Just enough to keep Harry alive for one more round and indeed the very thing to help Snape survive a rampaging Voldie who has just lost the prophecy forever. This, to me, seems a Dumbledorish thing to do. vmonte: I'm confused. Are you saying that Dumbledore gave Snape permission to leak the second half of the prophecy so that Voldemort would realize that only he could kill Harry and therefore not allow anyone else to go after him? How about this line of thought instead. That Voldemort has all of a sudden closed off his mind to Harry because he has finally realized that Harry is a horcrux. That the connection they share seems to be greater than he previously thought. That killing Harry would in essence be like killing a part of himself. That he needs to find a way to remove the horcrux before Harry is killed. Did you notice that Snape tells Narcissa and Bella that Dumbledore sustained an injury during the summer? "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." (p31, Spinner's End) I'm sure that Snape mentioned this injury to Voldemort. Can't you also imagine Voldemort asking Snape what kind of injury it was? A curse? There was a ring? What did it look like? That kind of thing. So, now Voldemort must make Dumbledore his number one target, no? Voldemort closing his mind to Harry now makes more sense. Harry cannot know about Voldemort's plans. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139888 Regarding Draco - Betsy Hp: Thank goodness for Dumbledore. Though I think Dumbledore was thinking a bit higher than the court of law. (I think a court of law would probably consider the death threat against his family a mitigating circumstance, especially if the case is presented well.) vmonte: And here is the reason why innocent people like Stan Shunpike and Sirius Black end up in jail and people like Snape and Draco do not. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139910 >vmonte responds: He probably had to come up with a different way because he has no happy memories to create a patronus. >zgirnius: Isn't this how he communicates with others in the Order? Seems like he would have to be able to do this... vmonte: I don't know, really. But it seems curious that Snape has a different method than the norm. It seems that JKR is trying to clue us in on something here. Why would Snape not agree with Harry's method when Harry is so obviously great at this skill. This skill seems to be really tied into the Harry is full of love and goodness theme. This is Harry's own talent, not something he picked up from Voldemort. Harry has the ability to banish the lowest form of life, the soul sucking dementors. Creatures whose whole purpose in life is to destroy other people, and the only way to get rid of them is to understand true love. It's not enough to be happy about the first day you ride a broom or your first quidditch win, which are rather selfish memories. You need to remember a happy memory involving friendship and love of others. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139914 Hickengruendler: IMO, vmonte, the example you delivered are not the same as what Betsy meant. Neither of the characters you mentioned in your post changed. Tom Riddle and Crouch jr were simply good actors. They seemed likeable, because they managed to hide their real personalities. This is really the last thing you could accuse the Marauders of, making themselves look better in that scene, than they really were. And Hagrid was exactly the same guy he still is. The good natured but not very bright half-giant, who has a liking for monsters. We got some wrong informations, that made these characters look better or worse than they really were for a moment. But they did not change. vmonte: You are right, I was not talking about the "revelation model." I was commenting on "Snape's Worst Memory," which was being discussed up thread. I don't think that the marauders were trying to make themselves look better in the penseive memory, this is who they are IMO. What I do see though are Fred and George type guys. I don't always agree on what F&G do either, but I've noticed that F&G seem to reserve their nastier side for people like Draco and his pals (hexing, stepping over them in the train, etc). There is a reason why the marauders did not like Snape. Sorry, but the "poor me I'm a victim Snape" is starting to make me want to vomit. I'm also not letting F&G off the hook for some of the product based pranks they played on innocent students. (I have noticed however that F&G seem to use themselves as product testing guinea pigs just as much as they use other people. It may just mean they are stupid and not mature enough to think of the consequences.) Vivian From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 10 12:17:45 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:17:45 -0000 Subject: Depth? Things to take on their face value (Was: Sirius' loyalty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139921 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > Marianne: > > I don't see this as a negation of DD's life work. He's someone who > > has valued people as individuals and recognized that society's > > tendency to lump people into stereotypical groups is wrong. He's > > recognized that people may strive their utmost to achieve the best > > that they can, and thay they may still fall short. He shows that to > > forgive can be a lifeline to people trying to turn their lives > > around. > > Jen: This is all true, too. I tried to address some of the reasons why > I felt his life's work was something a little bit different in my > paragraph to vmonte. Dumbledore's ability to value people as > individuals and offer forgiveness and second chances was something > that sprung out of his work at Hogwarts, it wasn't the work itself. > Some people save others one at a time, but Dumbledore attempted to > save the community by bringing together a disparate group of the WW > elite and the WW outcasts and offering a place to live together safely > and work out their differences. A betrayl by someone like Crouch! Moody > or Umbridge, who came in for one year, is one thing. Betrayl by Snape, > who lived and worked there for 16 years and was someone Dumbledore > depended on to take the high road, not for him but for all the people > and creatures protected by him, is quite another. The idea he rolled > the dice on Snape for 16 long years and never once felt a hint of who > Snape truly was is mind-boggling. Unless, as you say, Snape simply > finally gave in to his darker side and it wasn't apparent until the > moment on the tower. Which would be even more baffling. Marianne: But, for most of those 16 years it didn't matter. There was no corporeal Voldemort, no DE activity. Let's assume that Snape came to DD because of Voldemort's orders. Voldemort is vaporized at Godric's Hollow. Snape avoids punishment for his DE past chiefly through DD's intercession. Then what? It makes sense to me that Snape might decide that a position at Hogwarts was not such a bad deal. And for the next 13 or so years, that's what Snape was. A teacher at Hogwarts. No need to revel in his dark past or to reveal any more of it. I think what he told Bellatrix at Spinner's End was probably quite true. He thought Voldemort was dead and not coming back. Looking at it in that way I think that the question of how well Snape may have fooled Dumbledore becomes somewhat less mind- boggling. There would have been no active deceit going on for over a decade. I understand better your thoughts on DD's work to mend and protect his society. And, I agree - the smaller betrayals of Crough!Moody and Umbridge are of a different magnitude than that of Snape, if indeed he is ESE or OFH. I'm not convinced that Snape is ESE. But, I'm also not convinced that DD couldn't have been mistaken in his trust in Snape. Marianne From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Sep 10 12:24:26 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:24:26 -0000 Subject: Characters and the revelation model (Was: Re: Depth?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139922 - Haha Vivian I answered your post while you were reconsidering it.. I'll try to answer all of your thoughts now. > >Valky: > What this line of thought eventually leads me to is the reason that > Snape ordered the DE's not to kill Harry. I submit that Dumbledore > conspired for some of the prophecy to be leaked to Voldemort, or at > least an interpretation of it, enough so that Snape could provide > Voldie incentive to believe that a very great threat to him would be > Harry dying at the hand of another. Just enough to keep Harry alive > for one more round and indeed the very thing to help Snape survive a > rampaging Voldie who has just lost the prophecy forever. This, to > me, seems a Dumbledorish thing to do. > vmonte: > There is no way that this happened. Dumbledore leaked the prophecy? > How far are we going to go to let Snape off the hook for everything > he has ever done? This would make Dumbledore just as bad as > Voldemort IMO. > Valky: You seem to be taking what I said above to mean that DD leaked the whole prophecy. But I am not saying that at all. I am just saying that I can imagine a scenario in which Dumbledore would consider that giving Voldemort one small piece of information about the prophecy would work to the overall advantage of the good guys. It actually seems quite likely to me that the *whole year* of time that Dumbledore and Harry had in HBP after Voldemort had been foiled in retrieving the prophecy could easily have come at a price. Something curbed Voldemort's ploy for information and sent him on a different path in HBP. And I simply credit that to an ingenious tactic by DD. The most likely thing that would cause this change in Voldie is if he was handed a little bit more of the prophecy, something to act on, otherwise he'd be acting directly on getting information to act on, if you catch my drift. And he wasn't. We at least have to wonder how Snape could get away with telling the DE's not to kill Harry, they are going to pass that information to Voldemort when they get back to DE HQ, so Snape needs for it to *really* be what Voldemort wants or else he's dead, Draco's dead, and Dumbledore got nothing really done while he was alive. No, I am sure that Snape had rights by Voldemort to order Harry to be spared. And I think it has to be thanks to Voldemorts tendency to always act on the prophecy. > > vmonte: > I'm confused. Are you saying that Dumbledore gave Snape permission > to leak the second half of the prophecy so that Voldemort would > realize that only he could kill Harry and therefore not allow anyone > else to go after him? Valky: No and Yes.. No not all of the second half of the prophecy, just a part of it. Enough to motivated Voldie to act in a predictable way which is yes pretty much what you said above. > Vmonte: > How about this line of thought instead. That Voldemort has all of a > sudden closed off his mind to Harry because he has finally realized > that Harry is a horcrux. That the connection they share seems to be > greater than he previously thought. That killing Harry would in > essence be like killing a part of himself. That he needs to find a > way to remove the horcrux before Harry is killed. Valky: I think that there is a good strong possibility that Voldemort has become vaguely aware of the *snake* inside Harry. (OOtP page 425), but there is also a slight possibility that he hasn't. > Vmonte: > Did you notice that Snape tells Narcissa and Bella that Dumbledore > sustained an injury during the summer? > > "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." (p31, Spinner's End) > > I'm sure that Snape mentioned this injury to Voldemort. Can't you > also imagine Voldemort asking Snape what kind of injury it was? A > curse? There was a ring? What did it look like? That kind of thing. > So, now Voldemort must make Dumbledore his number one target, no? > Voldemort closing his mind to Harry now makes more sense. Harry > cannot know about Voldemort's plans. Valky: Yes I think you are right that Voldie closed his mind to protect his attack on Dumbledore. Heres another thing you might want to consider. In the battle in the MOM Harry reveals to the DE's that Dumbledore has been keeping the prophecy from him, the DE's have told Voldemort therefore that Harry doesn't know a single word of the prophecy as far as they have been informed, in fact he didn't even know it existed until they told him about it. So here is a perfect opportunity for Dumbledore to play Voldie into his hands. If he hands one line of the prophecy to Voldemort, and Voldemort thinks that he knows more than Harry, then Voldemort is going to close his mind to Harry, he doesn't want Harry finding out more information than he has.. see my drift there.. Now as far as Voldemort knows the only person that can tell Harry the prophecy and arm him against Voldemort is Dumbledore, so then it makes sense to get Dumbledore out of the way as quickly as possible. So Voldemort makes a play for the lead here, he takes his tidbit of the prophecy, and he gets rid of the source. If it works out he is a nose in front of Harry in the last battle.. Valky From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Sep 10 14:01:09 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:01:09 -0000 Subject: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort (was: Re: Draco's culpability...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139923 > Betsy Hp: > Draco gains no lethal skills. That > interests me. a_svirn: Why is it of so great interest? So what if Draco didn't learn any "lethal skills"? One doesn't have to possess any fancy skills to commit a murder. Dilettantes do it every day, as papers quick to inform us. > Betsy Hp: Just as it interests me that, though the end is > assassination, the means is so very benign. a_svirn: Are you sure that "benign" and "assassination" belong to the same sentence? And what do you mean by it, anyway? If you mean `quick and clean' then it's Snape who comes out as a "benign assassin", not Draco. > > Betsy Hp: > Thank goodness for Dumbledore. Though I think Dumbledore was > thinking a bit higher than the court of law. a_svirn: Could you elaborate on that one, please? It sounds kind of cryptic. > Betsy Hp: > But the two attempts were neither sophisticated nor efficient. > Neither Katie nor Ron were the intended victim. a_svirn: These murder attempts were inefficient insofar Dumbledore was concerned. Which is why Voldemort remained unimpressed. However, Draco nearly did in his two schoolmates. They survived only by an accident. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Sep 10 15:43:38 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 15:43:38 -0000 Subject: The graveyard at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139924 > Geoff: > But somewhere lurking in the back of my mind is the belief that I saw > a reference to a comment from JKR when Alfonso Cuaran wanted to have > a graveyard scene in the film version of Azkaban. IIRC he was told > that he could not have it where he wanted it because there was a > graveyard at Hogwarts but in a different part of the school grounds. > Potioncat: There are at least two such interviews, or perhaps one and one transcript of it. It exists on the DVD for the MTMNBN. However, there has been an interview (at least one)after HBP in which JKR says the graveyard was a myth. I can't find "that" interview although I'm sure I read it! I have found a description of it at Quick Quotes. Here is my best guess: Cuaron wanted a graveyard, JKR said no. He misunderstood her reason. He told the story and the fans misinterpreted the reasons as well. JKR was agreeing that there were some things she nixed because they didn't fit with the entire series; but she may not have been agreeing (in the DVD interview) with the reason for nixing the graveyard. Could I possibly have confused this issue any more? At any rate, no one seems to be able to find the quote where JKR herself says the Hogwarts graveyard doesn't exist. From jlv230 at yahoo.co.uk Sat Sep 10 16:23:30 2005 From: jlv230 at yahoo.co.uk (jlv230) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 16:23:30 -0000 Subject: The graveyard at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139925 > Potioncat: > No one seems to be able to find the quote where JKR herself says the > Hogwarts graveyard doesn't exist. I don't think there exists a publicly available transcript of Owen Jones' (the 14 year old ITV contest winner) interview with JKR. I did watch it when it was on, and I do remember JKR laughing about the graveyard, but I haven't since seen a transcript online. Did no-one tape it? That seems very unlike potterfans! JLV xx From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Sep 10 16:45:36 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 16:45:36 -0000 Subject: Depth? Things to take on their face value (Was: Sirius' loyalty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139926 > Pippin: > But they were only shown mercy, not trust. I'm asking > how Dumbledore's belief that someone on their second > chance can be *trusted* is to be validated if Snape > failed his trust. > Neri: Well, you have pointed out yourself that Lupin was awarded that kind of trust. So either we will have ESE!Lupin and Innocent!Snape, or we will have Loyal!Lupin and Guilty!Snape. Whichever of these happens we are assured that at least one character would justify trust awarded as a second chance, and thus Dumbledore's epitomness is guaranteed. Neri Nora: I hadn't thought of it in those logical terms, but I do believe that Neri is right. :) We've been arguing about how implausible it is that Dumbledore be fooled, but if we hew to Pippin's ESE!Lupin theory (which she has supported without break or failing heart), Lupin has gotten one over on Dumbledore--and has, indeed, been doing it for *years*. With real style, too, to evade suspicion and be granted as much forgiveness and acceptance as the Order has offered him. In this scenario, Dumbledore has given Lupin repeated chances to prove himself trustworthy--all of which Lupin has betrayed, but Dumbledore just keeps giving Lupin more chances. Does that make Dumbledore an idiot, or Lupin into the uber-smooth spy of the century? I suppose that it's BANG-ier than having Snape, who's worked much more closely with Dumbledore, be the betraying character. But it still makes Dumbledore into the fallible figure that ESE/OFH!Snape does, which means that very same thematic objection can also be applied to the ESE!Lupin theory. Pippin: I must say this sudden outbreak of enthusiasm for ESE!Lupin is gratifying. However the situation is not the same. First of all, there is no evidence that Lupin remained in close contact with Dumbledore during his missing years, in fact those missing years are one big fat evil Lupin clue. Second, let's break down the 'second chances' thing. Dumbledore gives people who mess up a second chance, but does not assume they are worthy of trust. That is for those who express genuine remorse and turn over a new leaf, as Dumbledore hoped Riddle would do. Now, unless I missed something ESE!Lupin hasn't confessed as yet to any of his real crimes, so he hasn't expressed genuine remorse. He hasn't shown much capacity for turning over new leaves, either. Dumbledore's principles are not tested by this example, because Lupin never gave him a chance to apply them. Thirdly, of course in either scenario Dumbledore is fallible. But Nora argued herself that we are to take his major ethical pronouncements at face value. If so, he should be fallible because he fails to apply them, not because the principles themselves are faulty. And Dumbledore shouldn't be failing to apply them in glaringly obvious ways. Though all of Jo's mathematical errors do not for one moment threaten the laws of arithmetic, all the same I don't think I'd trust a maths textbook with her name on it. Dumbledore can make a mistake or two, just as textbooks do. But however huge they are once their consequences have multiplied, they should not be so obvious in the beginning that a gormless teenager could spot them in embryo. What we don't know, of course, is how Dumbledore determined that Snape's remorse was genuine, or whether he ever treated Lupin's breach of trust in not informing him about Sirius with the, er, seriousness that it deserved. Pippin From lolita_ns at yahoo.com Sat Sep 10 11:17:57 2005 From: lolita_ns at yahoo.com (lolita_ns) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 11:17:57 -0000 Subject: New thought on Horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139927 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > From GoF, Priori Incantatem, beginning page 665, first, Wormtail's > hand, then Cedric Diggory, then Frank Bryce, Bertha Jorkins, Lily > Potter, finally James Potter, all emerge from the wand. Voldemort's > father and grandparents don't. Neither does Moaning Myrtle, but > then, she wasn't killed by wand. That makes nine, not counting > Wormtail's hand, and any more that didn't come out between James and > the Riddles. I was just wondering if he'd only killed six or seven. > I'd forgotten about Bertha Jorkins and Moaning Myrtle... Lolita: Of course he's killed more than that - enough to fill a lake with corpses and turn them into Inferi. I doubt that anyone else knew of the existence of the cave (apart from RAB, of course, and he's dead - or his helper, but it seems that he told no one, or DD wouldn't have spent entire year trying to locate the cave) and contributed to the 'collection'. Plus, it says that both Amelia Bones and Regulus Black were killed by LV himself (please don't take Sirius's word that RB wasn't important enough for granted. If anything, Sirius was not completely sane and was sometimes just plain *wrong* about people - he says that Pettigrew is pathetic, stupid and weak, and Peter *tricked* him - not only him, but *everybody* else, including DD, got away with it for 12 years, made his escape yet again and is now spying SS in his own house. That is cunning and dangerous for me - he's constantly playing the *Underestimate me!* card, in order to keep tricking people and thus *surviving*. Sirius also says that Crouch Snr was ruthless, and yet we saw Croutch settle with Karkaroff, release SS on account of DD's guarantees, and believe both LMalfoy and Avery when they said they were Imperiused. So, I would take his statement with a pinch of salt and agree that LV might have very well killed RB himself). And then, there is DD's statement that LV saved particularly important murders to create Horcruxes. Which would perhaps explain why he didn't want to kill Lily - he didn't need to kill her (but that opens a whole can of worms on Harry-the-Horcrux theory and I don't have the time to go there now). I agree with you that soul doesn't tear equally. LV's soul - even the thing that's inside him, is probably a collection of shreds and threads and itsy bitsy pieces. He secured the 6 parts outside his body, and what remained inside is probably as shredded as a panhandler's uniform - but in one place. Cheers, Lolita. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Sep 10 17:26:37 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 17:26:37 -0000 Subject: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort (was: Re: Draco's culpability...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139928 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" wrote: > One thing I don't think I heard you say was what sort of punishment Draco should recieve for his actions. Even if there were mitigating circumstances there should be a consequence to his actions. After all, it wasn't like he was being held at gunpoint. He kept up his actions even after he was safely behind the wards of hogwarts and he could have gone to dumbledore at any time. Should he have his wand snapped? should he be imprisoned? What should happen to him according to you? Pippin: Dumbledore does not seem to believe that there should be permanent penalties when there has been no permanent harm...and that even proven killers should be killed only if they resist arrest or capture. He believed that Draco would be murdered if Voldemort knew he had been found out, and he did not believe that Draco deserved that. It was dangerous to leave Draco free to try again, but as you say, there are many spells on Hogwarts for the physical and mental protection of its inhabitants. There might be more than one meaning to Dumbledore's statement that killing is not as easy as the innocent believe. AFAWK, no child has ever been able to kill by his own hand at Hogwarts, despite all the dangerous magic they do. I think that's why the Death Eaters' entry into the castle was indeed necessary to the murder plot. Snape told Draco that he wasn't going to get anywhere without backup, and Draco told him he was going to have backup, better than Crabbe and Goyle. Phoenixgod: > Why thank goodness for Dumbledore? Dumbledore has no authority to give forgiveness or pass a benediction to Draco. The only people who can do that are the ones he hurt or nearly killed. What would Bill, Ron, and Katie think of Dumbledore calling Draco an *innocent* and trying to get him into hiding so he can avoid the consequences of his actions? Pippin: There is no canon that Dumbledore intended Draco to go without punishment because he didn't want him to be killed, any more than Harry intended that Wormtail not be punished when he refused to allow Sirius and Lupin to murder him. Dumbledore is the law at Hogwarts, and head of the Wizengamot besides. He cannot grant moral forgiveness, nor did he claim to, but he can certainly grant mercy. What punishment would you suggest for Draco? Draco has effectively been expelled and is currently in the custody of a) a murderer who believes he failed in his mission or b) Dumbledore's man who has a knack for devising sadistic punishments. Either way, he's probably envying Lucius his nice safe cell. Pippin From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Sep 10 17:40:56 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 17:40:56 -0000 Subject: Depth? Things to take on their face value (Was: Sirius' loyalty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139929 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Now, unless I missed something ESE!Lupin hasn't confessed > as yet to any of his real crimes, so he hasn't expressed genuine > remorse. He hasn't shown much capacity for turning over new > leaves, either. Dumbledore's principles are not tested by > this example, because Lupin never gave him a chance to > apply them. Hmmm, let's see. Being as most of ESE!Lupin's 'real' crimes have received little to no actual mention in canon or require very oblique readings to come into existence, that's not shocking. :) But IIRC, Lupin's actions in the Shack are considered a major screw up, no? Dumbledore seems to have fully accepted Lupin back into the fold after those, bringing him up at the end of GoF as a place for Sirius to go. I suppose you can argue that thus Lupin is never in a situation for real trust yadda yadda or real remorse, but we're all building cloudcastles in the area of DD and Lupin. > Thirdly, of course in either scenario Dumbledore is fallible. > But Nora argued herself that we are to take his major ethical > pronouncements at face value. If so, he should be fallible > because he fails to apply them, not because the principles > themselves are faulty. And Dumbledore shouldn't be failing to > apply them in glaringly obvious ways. But there is no logically necessary connection here between "DD is right to hold his principles" and "DD's trust in Snape is going to be borne out". DD may well be ethically correct to hand out second chances, but the failure of one instance of this action (Snape, in this construction) does not invalidate the principle itself. It would just invalidate your preferred illustration of this principle. It's the same argument as teaching the kiddies good moral lessons, at root. :) > Dumbledore can make a mistake or two, just as textbooks do. But > however huge they are once their consequences have multiplied, they > should not be so obvious in the beginning that a gormless teenager > could spot them in embryo. Oh, I don't know. I think there's an increasing and increasingly interesting thematic thread with Dumbledore, and it's connected to the kinds of mistakes that he makes. Dumbledore makes mistakes because he is isolated, and because he does not fully comprehend what actions can mean to specific people. Dumbledore can keep on Snape and allow him to teach as he does because the kids need to learn to deal with it, but DD isn't in the inferior spot in the power relationship. I think he's chronically underestimated Harry's feelings and those of others, consequently. Easy to brush that off when you're in the top slot and looking at the big picture. I also wonder about Dumbledore's assumption of the right to judgement and forgiveness with Draco, where DD seems to take that right and power onto himself for Katie and Ron. In loco parentis maybe, but it's actually a little troublesome for me. Dumbledore, thinking on the scale and thinking with the aspects that he does, may well have bought a (genuine or not) repentance story, but overlooked or chose to consider lesser the character and personality aspects which Harry pegged onto quickly, with their exercise upon him. This does fit in with her comments about how aware children are about these things: "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." I grant you that it's indeed a skip and a leap from abuse of power quickly discerned by Our Hero to scumsucking murderous traitor, but it's not like the latter hasn't been potentially foreshadowed. A small initial mistake, growing and mutating over the course of the books, hitting specifically at Dumbledore's blind spots? One route in a garden of forking paths. > What we don't know, of course, is how Dumbledore determined > that Snape's remorse was genuine, or whether he ever > treated Lupin's breach of trust in not informing him about Sirius > with the, er, seriousness that it deserved. Maybe not much was made of it because Dumbledore didn't consider it as the deathly grave event that you do? :) Open questions, of course. Genuinely remorseful Snape 16 or whatever years ago still doesn't invalidate the possibility that Snape turned on Dumbledore for whatever reason. That would be genuinely interesting--we're all obsessed with the past as key to the present, when the action could hinge completely upon the present. -Nora yawns and stretches and tries to wake up From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Sat Sep 10 17:58:47 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 17:58:47 -0000 Subject: Killing tears the soul apart redux. WAS: Re: Snape's penance? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139930 > Jen: What *would* scare Borgin, that's the question isn't it? The > dark mark doesn't sit well with me because it's hard to believe > Borgin hasn't seen a whole lot worse, given his age and business > dealings. "Yeah, yeah, some young punk just shoved a dark mark in my > face, like I haven't seen *that* before." Especially after we watch > oily Borgin interact with Lucius. Now Lucius would be someone to > fear, for his money and power let alone his past affiliation with > Voldemort, and Borgin basically made fun of him behind his back. > > vmonte: > Really Jen? I think Borgin would be afraid if Draco showed him the > dark mark. Haven't several people died and/or disappeared recently? > Doesn't having the mark mean that you belong to that particular > group? Amiable Dorsai: I think you've put your finger on it. Draco hasn't scared Borgin personally, it's his associates--Big V in particular--who frighten Borgin. And it's ever so Draco--Draco is alway's using his connections to try to get others to do his will: He uses Crabbe and Goyle as goons, he is forever reminding people who his father is, he brags of of having connections amongst the OWL examiners, and so on. Amiable Dorsai From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sat Sep 10 18:23:44 2005 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 11:23:44 -0700 Subject: Dealing with Dementors: Harry v Snape, Love v Happy Message-ID: <700201d4050910112329b1a9a6@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139931 Kemper earlier in another thread: My impression of the 'breeding' of Dementors was that a Dementor is created/conceived by sucking out the soul of its victim. So the soul isn't destroyed; it is transformed. Going with the Conservation Law of Energy model up-thread with regards to the Soul, the Soul is converted to a Dementor. Makes me wonder what Snape's other way of dealing with Dementor's is. The Patronus is a wonderful charm for pushing Dementors away, but it doesn't really defeat them in the long run. What if Snape's other way of dealing with Dementors converts/transforms/transfigures the Dementor back to a Soul? This way could be more dangerous because of the level of magic involved, the distance required, or something else: making Harry think that the Patronus is a better option for many of the students. >vmonte responded: He probably had to come up with a different way because he has no happy memories to create a patronus. >zgirnius questioned vmonte: Isn't this how he communicates with others in the Order? Seems like he would have to be able to do this... vmonte responded to zgirnius: I don't know, really. But it seems curious that Snape has a different method than the norm. Why would Snape not agree with Harry's method when Harry is so obviously great at this skill. This skill seems to be really tied into the Harry is full of love and goodness theme. This is Harry's own talent, not something he picked up from Voldemort. Harry has the ability to banish the lowest form of life, the soul sucking dementors. Creatures whose whole purpose in life is to destroy other people, and the only way to get rid of them is to understand true love. It's not enough to be happy about the first day you ride a broom or your first quidditch win, which are rather selfish memories. You need to remember a happy memory involving friendship and love of others. Now, Kemper challenges: First, Snape has a different method than what *Harry* considers the norm. Second, I question whether the skill is tied into love and goodness: "'I heard, from my dear friend Tiberius Ogden, that you can produce a Patronus? For a bonus point...?' Harry raised his wand, looked directly at Umbridge, and imagined her being sacked. 'Expecto Patronum!'" (OP, 714, US Hard) Imagining someone being sacked is not a thought filled with love nor goodness. But it sure is a happy thought! Nevertheless, it is a thought rooted in resentment/spite/loathing for Umbridge... who rightly deserves Harry's contempt. Who else could have a Patronus created by imagining a DADA professor being sacked? What if that DADA professor were Lockhart? Lupin? Moody!CrouchJr? and, for sure, Umbridge? I'm guessing Snape. But back to topic: Having Dementors around would make producing a patronus harder, but if a Dementor would have suddenly appeared during after Harry's patronus in his DADA O.W.L., I have no doubt that Harry's Patronus, created from a bit of self-righteous contempt, could have successfully charged and scared off that Dementor... easily. Thoughts? Kemper [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Sat Sep 10 18:32:11 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 18:32:11 -0000 Subject: Random Thoughts about the Wizarding World Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139932 Given that JKR doesn't really think in terms of numbers, trying to work out the size of the Wizarding community of Britain probably will never be very fruitful, but... what the heck. I'm hardly original in making this calculation, but I'll throw it out again. Given 300 students at Hogwarts, and an average life expectancy among wizards about twice that of Muggles, you get a wizarding population in the neighborhood of 6-7000--assuming there hasn't been any great disruption of the demographics. That seems small. Further, JKR has said that the population of Hogwarts is 1000 (Yeah, I know she's revised it downwards, but work with me, I'm going somewhere.) We can, sort of reconcile this if we assume that Harry's parents' generation took a really big hit during the first Voldemort War. Suppose that about 2/3 to 3/4 of the witches and wizards of that age cohort were killed, Longbottomed, sent to Azkaban, or otherwise rendered unable to reproduce. Harry's generation--the kids several years older and younger than Harry--would therefore be unusually small. Hogwarts then, would be serving an enrollment much smaller than it's "normal" 1000 students. There would be a population of much older Magicals rather larger--12,000 to 18,000 perhaps--than the simple multiplication of Hogwarts' current enrollment would indicate. Enough to support 13 Quidditch teams on a semi-pro basis, enough to generate the commerce necessary to support the shops in Diagon Alley and Hogsmeade, enough so that the Ministry of Magic doesn't look quite so bloated.... 2/3 to 3/4 of a given generation seems like a lot, but Harry's folks would have been in the age group that does most of the actual fighting and dying in Muggle wars, and civil wars are often the most bloody. A body count that high would go a long way toward explainng the pants-filling dread that most of the people we meet have for Voldemort, as well. It also would serve to explain the oddly high proportion of half-bloods and Muggleborns in Harry's year. In Gryffindor alone, only Neville and Ron are certainly pure blood. Lavender and Parvati may be, but, in POA, Lavender didn't know what a Grim was, so I'm guessing she's Muggle born. What do you all think? Amiable Dorsai From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Sep 10 19:14:45 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 19:14:45 -0000 Subject: Random Thoughts about the Wizarding World In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139933 amiabledorsai: > ...trying to work out the size of the Wizarding community... > > Suppose that about 2/3 to 3/4 of the witches and wizards of that age > cohort were killed, Longbottomed, sent to Azkaban, or otherwise > rendered unable to reproduce. Harry's generation--the kids several > years older and younger than Harry--would therefore be unusually small. > *(snip)* > Hogwarts then, would be serving an enrollment much smaller than it's > "normal" 1000 students. There would be a population of much older > Magicals rather larger--12,000 to 18,000 perhaps--than the simple > multiplication of Hogwarts' current enrollment would indicate. >Enough to support 13 Quidditch teams on a semi-pro basis, enough to >generate the commerce necessary to support the shops in Diagon Alley >and Hogsmeade, enough so that the Ministry of Magic doesn't look >quite so bloated.... > *(snip)* > It also would serve to explain the oddly high proportion of > half-bloods and Muggleborns in Harry's year. *(snip)* Ceridwen: The number of Witches and Wizards in the grandparental generation *might* hinge on Grindelwald and what sort of threat he posed. That would be the generation that was of an age to go off to GrindelWar. If he was as pants-wettingly terrifying as Voldemort, then that generation would be stunted as well, leaving fewer than the 1,000 student capacity of Hogwarts for James and Lily's generation, too. Leading, of course, to around 300 in Harry's generation. I don't think Grindelwald was as bad as Voldemort, since we just don't hear about him other than on Dumbledore's Chocolate Frogs card. He might have succumbed too early, or have had a completely different agenda not involving war. The WW may also be experiencing a natural decline in its numbers because of inbreeding among Purebloods, as has been suggested in other areas, like the WIKTT marriage challenge. This would account for the many Half-Bloods and Muggle-borns in Harry's years, and even in James's years. We do know that Lily was Muggle-born, and Snape was Half-Blood. How many others? And, for some reason, there are a lot of families with one child. I wonder if the Patil twins would have been a single child if the pregnancy would not have resulted in a multiple birth. The Weasleys seem out of the norm in this regard. Did the WW once have a time when there were larger families, as there was in the Muggle/our world? The shift to smaller families could explain it. Still, I agree that, for whatever reason, and Voldy is a *very* good reason for a depletion of Witches and Wizards of childbearing years, Hogwarts is not operating at full capacity. We don't know about the size of the dorm rooms, and extra beds would have been removed. But we do know that the third floor is currently not used. Also, *if* Hogwarts once operated as a facility of further education, say of apprentices, that might explain the empty third floor and the original capacity as well, since it doesn't seem to do that any more (if it ever did). But in the end, it could just be JKR being none too good at math. I doubt if she knew she would get so much attention and that her books would be so popular, esp. with adults. She threw numbers out, and we decided to go deeper. Still, the numbers are out there now, and we have them to play with. Ceridwen. From jmrazo at hotmail.com Sat Sep 10 19:46:43 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 19:46:43 -0000 Subject: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort (was: Re: Draco's culpability...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139934 > Pippin: > Dumbledore does not seem to believe that there should be permanent > penalties when there has been no permanent harm... Sideshow Bob: "really, what *is* attempted murder?" Dumbledore truly is disconnected from reality if attempting to kill someone just isn't all that bad and doesn't deserve a permanent punishment. > Pippin: > There is no canon that Dumbledore intended Draco to go without > punishment because he didn't want him to be killed, any more than > Harry intended that Wormtail not be punished when he refused to > allow Sirius and Lupin to murder him. But the difference is that Harry says he wants to keep wormtail alive to make sure Sirius gets his name cleared. OTOH we have Dumbledore shielding snape for more than a decade despite Snape having commited crimes that would have gottem him life in Azkaban, basically getting away with accessory to murder in the very least and probably worst crimes. Based on that I think there is every indication that Draco isn't going to face hard time if he goes away with DD. > Dumbledore is the law at Hogwarts, and head of the Wizengamot > besides. He cannot grant moral forgiveness, nor did he claim to, > but he can certainly grant mercy. > > What punishment would you suggest for Draco? I would like an offical government sanction of his actions (prison) and a civil suite on behalf of Bill, Ron, and katie to strip the Malfoys of as much wealth as possible. I want Draco stripped of just about everything that lets him believe he is better than everybody else. phoenixgod2000 From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 10 20:29:11 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 20:29:11 -0000 Subject: Characters and the revelation model (Was: Re: Depth?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139935 > >>Betsy Hp: > > So James really *is* retiring and shy? Yes, the best way to > > build up to a big reveal is to leave blank spaces and allow the > > reader to assume. But the author is unwise to lie. > > > > If it's all untrue, why write it to begin with? > >>Nora: > Not lying. Complicating. > > You seem very comfortable using one scene as the baseline for all > formulations of character, and linking up the similarities > smoothly. In situations with such little information, what you get > depends on how you read--you want similarities, you get them; you > want differences, you get them too. Betsy Hp: Probably because the similarities *do* line up smoothly. I've pointed out (a billion and six times it feels like) that *none* of the characters in the pensieve scene are unrecognizable, especially pre-Snape spotting. JKR *was* laying out a baseline, a foundation upon which to build her characters. Yes, changes can occur. Actually, we *know* they will occur. But (new verse same as the first) *no one is unrecognizable*. You seem to be suggesting (and you've yet to correct this assumption of mine, so I think you must agree) that JKR could choose to throw out everything she layed out in the pensieve scene because thats just how reveals go. And she *could* do that yes. Purple monkeys from Mars could attack Hogwarts, eat Harry, and end the tale. I doubt either will happen. Both senarios are jarring, and frankly, cheating on the part of the author. > >>Nora: > > But I can certainly think of points in time when we shouldn't take > what we'd see at that one point as *the* model of extrapolation > for the character. Ron isn't utterly defined by his jealousy of > Harry, nor is Hermione always unforgiving and utterly convinced of > her rightness. That's the seriation problem: you can't make a > pattern out of one incident. Betsy Hp: In a work of fiction, not only can you, sometimes you must. You're thinking like an anthropologist, or a police detective, I think. Assuming that one must collect more data in order to draw a conclusion. But we're not talking about characters that have a great many scenes per book. We're talking about characters that will probably have *one* more scene together before series end (the Prank, I imagine) and that's all she wrote. JKR *knows* this. And while the new scene will give us more information to work with it will not (unless JKR is a crap writer, which she isn't, so she won't) throw the other scene out like so much waste. We're not merely stumbling upon the Marauders here. JKR has given us only *one* scene to lay the foundations of the Marauder character and interplay. She *expects* us to gain an understanding of them through this one scene. So she wrote it carefully. And she gave plenty of secondary information to back this scene up. > >>Betsy Hp: > > JKR certainly leaves enough holes to allow a reader to go > > astray. But I really don't think she cheats in what she does > > definitively state. > >>Alla: > One word - Ginny. Now, I love her and Harry together and I > swallowed new Ginny, because I muttered to myself that Harry did > not really notice her and that is why everything is possible, but > I really did not see any signs of new Ginny prior to OOP. > Betsy Hp: Exactly! Thank you, Alla, this backs my point up beautifully. JKR fell down when it came to Ginny's character, and the cries of foul throughout fandom show it. I see enough evidence in the books to think that JKR really did see Ginny as the spitfire girl from the get-go, but she bungled in sharing that information with her readers. Frankly, I think JKR sees the romances as a bit boring so fleshing out the character of Ginny (as Harry's prize) was never top of her list. [Just a note: I'm talking purely of character here, not the ship.] *Friendship* on the other hand, is a big thing with JKR, and she's been so careful with her handling of the Marauders and Snape and their interactions with each other so far I seriously doubt she'd screw up as badly with them. > >>Betsy Hp: > > With James, obviously there's a change from the boy we see > > in the pensieve and the future head boy. But I'm quite > > confident that the change will not be so drastic as to render > > the boy in the pensieve a falsehood. His character will > > maintain continuity, he'll just take it in a more positive > > direction. > >>Nora: > Okay, so we're left with a kind of genteel 'he changed' with no > causal element. > Betsy Hp: Erm...if that's what you want? I doubt it's how JKR will play it, and it's not at all what I'm suggesting. (My money is on the Prank turning James around, and an attempt to turn your "friend" into a cannibal hardly strikes me as "genteel".) I just doubt a total personality make-over for James. After the prank, his mom will still recognize him. (And so will the readers.) > >>Nora; > Again, I've never asked for 'falsification', although there are > aspects of character that could well be solidly falsified by the > ending of the series. But I think we could get enough to render > one of the propositions way back, "The Marauders didn't have a > genuine friendship, it was a myth" falsified. Betsy Hp: Depends on how you define friendship. Peter was not an equal of James and Sirius. I get the sense that Remus was considered a bit of a lesser-then too. And yes, the "shoulder to shoulder into the sunset" is something I don't think canon supports, myself. I'm *not* saying that victim!Snape and bully!James is the only possible conclusion of that scene. (Too much in the scene itself contradicts it.) But I am saying bestfriend-of-Sirius!James and sporty!James and bit-of-a-showoff!James, and even goldenboy!James is there, and it's foolish to try and read the character while overlooking those aspects, IMO. Betsy Hp From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Sep 10 20:47:31 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 20:47:31 -0000 Subject: Dealing with Dementors: Harry v Snape, Love v Happy In-Reply-To: <700201d4050910112329b1a9a6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139936 Now, Kemper challenges: First, Snape has a different method than what *Harry* considers the norm. Second, I question whether the skill is tied into love and goodness: "'I heard, from my dear friend Tiberius Ogden, that you can produce a Patronus? For a bonus point...?' Harry raised his wand, looked directly at Umbridge, and imagined her being sacked. 'Expecto Patronum!'" (OP, 714, US Hard) Imagining someone being sacked is not a thought filled with love nor goodness. But it sure is a happy thought! Nevertheless, it is a thought rooted in resentment/spite/loathing for Umbridge... who rightly deserves Harry's contempt. Who else could have a Patronus created by imagining a DADA professor being sacked? What if that DADA professor were Lockhart? Lupin? Moody!CrouchJr? and, for sure, Umbridge? I'm guessing Snape. But back to topic: Having Dementors around would make producing a patronus harder, but if a Dementor would have suddenly appeared during after Harry's patronus in his DADA O.W.L., I have no doubt that Harry's Patronus, created from a bit of self-righteous contempt, could have successfully charged and scared off that Dementor... easily. Thoughts? vmonte: I don't know Kemper. If creating an effective patronus were that simple then anyone could do it, no? Harry wasn't really fighting off a dementor during his O.W.L.S. was he? "You made that dementor on the train back off," said Harry suddenly. "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." (P188, PoA) Lupin admits that it gets harder the more dementors there are. How far then can a self-righteous memory take you? We also know that during Harry's lessons he is not fighting a real dementor but a boggart, which is not the actual thing. A lesser memory would also probably do the trick here. But self-righteous contempt does not explain how Harry was able to knock down the "swarming dementors" at the end of PoA (IMO). It's more than likely that it has to do with the love and goodness that Harry represents/carries. "Dementors are among the foulest creatures that walk this earth. They infest the darkest, filthiest places, they glory in decay and despair, they drain peace, hope, and happiness out of the air around them. Get too near a dementor and every good feeling, every happy memory will be sucked out of you." (P187, PoA) Self-righteous contempt is probably all you need to create a messenger patronus. In that case, Snape is more than capable of creating one. Vivian From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Sep 10 21:09:52 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 21:09:52 -0000 Subject: Believing Harry is not a Horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139937 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "saraquel_omphale" wrote: > Geoff wrote: > > It's the structure where I may differ. As a Christian, I accept the > > concept of "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all > > your mind and with all your soul". > > > > To that end, I see the transfer of powers and memories that you list > > as being intellectual - i.e. of the mind. I do not see them as being > > to do with the soul and thus do not imagiane bits and pieces of > > Voldemort's soul moving over to Harry. Perhaps, he retained two > > pieces of torn soul in himself at that point. > > Saraquel: > Up-thread I posted a detailed discussion of the soul in JKRs world > being more akin to personality or psyche. It is not a view that I > personally hold, but it is definitely a view which can be supported by > canon. In your post Geoff, you don't say, based on my belief that JKR > is working from a Christian viewpoint of the soul being .... but > rather, you appear to me, to be disagreeing with the horcrux idea > because you personally don't like it. Was that what you meant? > > As a general comment, I think, if we are speculating about the plot of > the book, then we need to make the ideas consistent with canon, as per > the rules of the list. I would genuinely be interested to read your > canon support for your ideas Geoff. Geoff: To be quite frank, looking back over the almost 7000 posts which have arrived since 19th July, if the elves were to enforce the idea the ideas are consistent with canon, I think that over half would be rejected because the contributors are speculating and extrapolating their ideas on implied situations and possible hints in canon. First of all, I have not disagreed with the idea of a Horcrux; what i have done is to express my own conviction that Harry is not one. Let me return to that later. You say that the soul is more akin to personality or psyche. The word `psyche' is derived from the Greek word for `soul' so that hardly surprises me! From a Christian respective, I have already said that I see a person as body, mind and soul ? a fusion of the physical, the intellectual and the spiritual if you prefer it that way. I believe that our whole being reflects our personality but after death, it is our soul which will continue into "the next great adventure". Actually, JKR does not give us an awful lot to work on when it comes to Horcruxes. Slughorn defines a Horcrux as: "the word used for an object in which a person has concealed part of their soul" (HBP "Horcruxes" p.464 UK edition). Dumbledore then expounds a little further on this: `"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) Beyond that, we are given little; it is here that speculative thinking has been rife. We do not know precisely what form a Horcrux takes. Is it tangible? Is it invisible? How do we know that it is there? I have a mental vision of it being like a piece of A4 paper which is being torn into smaller bits; a silly idea but it is one that has stuck with me. As a mathematician myself, I would agree with those who have suggested that it doesn't divide itself neatly into fractions of the whole. Slughorn's comments seem to suggest that creating a Horcrux is not something which has been frequently performed and to create more than one is, to him, unthinkable. Obviously, there are dark wizards who have committed more than one murder and therefore have a seriously damaged soul but it would seem that the torn fragments have remained within the person involved. Which harks back to what I said in the earlier post in that I believed that powers which Harry apparently acqruied from Voldemort were of the mind and that the soul fragment wasa not involved. I have been exercised over the question of what happened to Voldemort's remaining fragment when he was disembodied at Godric's Hollow. Dumbledore's comment, quoted above, seems to suggest that it remained within him which again raises the question of how tangible is a soul? Which is also an interesting question within the real world. Were it not for Dumbledore's comment and the fact that we are told in POA that a person without a soul is effectively an empty shell, I would lean to the idea that Voldemort lost his last soul fragment at this point - but not to Harry. He is certainly a person who could truly be described as soulless. He is obsessed with power, he is obsessed with killing Harry, he shows no love or compassion or feeling for anyone else. The words of Jesus have occurred to me several times in the last few days: "What will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul?" And this for me is the tragedy of Tom Riddle. He has opted for immortality but what will he do with it? If he achieves it, will it bring him any satisfaction or peace of mind? The answer is a resounding "no". I am reminded of the Star Trek episode in which one of the Q Continuum wanted to commit suicide because immortality had become unbearable. 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. OK, in the real world, that situation occurs. As the anniversary of 11th September is almost on us, I remember that some of our US friends were faced with that choice when they opted to tackle the terrorists on the fourth plane and brought it down. But I do believe that the way in which Jo Rowling has constructed her story has encouraged folk of all ages and for Harry not to emerge relatively unscathed from a final encounter would undo the integrity of the themes in the eyes of many people. What I have written are obviously subjective, personal views and not everyone will agree with me but I shall be deeply disappointed if Harry failed to reach the end of Book 7. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 10 21:31:26 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 21:31:26 -0000 Subject: Scaring Borgin (was:Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139938 > >>Jen: > > What *would* scare Borgin, that's the question isn't it? The > > dark mark doesn't sit well with me because it's hard to believe > > Borgin hasn't seen a whole lot worse, given his age and business > > dealings. > > > >>vmonte: > Really Jen? I think Borgin would be afraid if Draco showed him the > dark mark. Haven't several people died and/or disappeared recently? > Doesn't having the mark mean that you belong to that particular > group? Betsy Hp: I agree with Jen. I'm sure Borgin has been involved in a lot of dark dealings considering his store. Not only does Lucius not scare him, he actually had Tom Riddle himself working for him at one point. > >>Jen: > > The Hand of Glory is a non-starter, and Draco isn't in > > possession of the necklace yet (that one would scare me after > > seeing what happened to Katy with only a tiny pinprick in her > > glove). Betsy Hp: Plus, both of those items were being *sold* by Mr. Borgin. No, I doubt it's a dark object either. The man makes his living off such things, they could hardly frighten him so badly. > >>Jen: > It would have to be something on Draco's person, or small enough > to fit in his robes. > You don't suppose Draco has some infomation on Borgin, do you? And > he showed him a little reminder of the deed? Something sinister > Borgin was involved with during the time Riddle was employed > there, perhaps. Stolen dark magic objects, other suspicious > deaths.... Betsy Hp: Hmmm.... Could well be, especially since Draco often knows more than he should. Or! What if Borgin has a grandchild or a niece or nephew or something? Maybe Draco had a picture of them. The Fenrir threat follows pretty quickly on the heels of Draco showing Borgin something, so maybe the two are connected somehow? That would certainly be creepy enough. Betsy Hp From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Sep 10 21:54:14 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 21:54:14 -0000 Subject: Scaring Borgin (was:Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139939 >Jen: What *would* scare Borgin, that's the question isn't it? The dark mark doesn't sit well with me because it's hard to believe Borgin hasn't seen a whole lot worse, given his age and business dealings. >vmonte: Really Jen? I think Borgin would be afraid if Draco showed him the dark mark. Haven't several people died and/or disappeared recently? Doesn't having the mark mean that you belong to that particular group? >Betsy Hp: I agree with Jen. I'm sure Borgin has been involved in a lot of dark dealings considering his store. Not only does Lucius not scare him, he actually had Tom Riddle himself working for him at one point. vmonte again: Here is how I interpret the scene with Draco and Borgin. Draco: This is what I want you to do. (Doesn't get enough of a response from Borgin.) You don't know what you're dealing with here do you? Look at this? (Shows him the mark.) Borgin: Horrified expression, thinks of recent deaths and murders, including of other shop owners (even of that ice cream vendor that was killed). Draco: Yeah, that's right! You should be afraid! And guess what? I'm not going to just kill you with an AK I'm going to send a werewolf in here so that he can SHRED YOU TO PIECES! Now get a move on! By the way, you better not slack off. The werewolf will be checking in on you--GOT IT! I'm not sure why it matters whether Borgin is a petty criminal or not. Having your life threatened is still scary, no? Vivian From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sat Sep 10 22:45:21 2005 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 15:45:21 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dealing with Dementors: Harry v Snape, Love v Happy In-Reply-To: References: <700201d4050910112329b1a9a6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <700201d405091015455c1bd813@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139940 On 9/10/05, vmonte wrote: > Kemper challenges: > ... I question whether the skill is tied into love and > goodness: > > "'I heard, from my dear friend Tiberius Ogden, that you can produce a > Patronus? For a bonus point...?' Harry raised his wand, looked > directly at Umbridge, and imagined her being sacked. 'Expecto > Patronum!'" (OP, 714, US Hard) > > Imagining someone being sacked is not a thought filled with love nor > goodness. But it sure is a happy thought! Nevertheless, it is a > thought rooted in resentment/spite/loathing for Umbridge... who > rightly deserves Harry's contempt. Who else could have a Patronus > created by imagining a DADA professor being sacked? What if that DADA > professor were Lockhart? Lupin? Moody!CrouchJr? and, for sure, > Umbridge? I'm guessing Snape. But back to topic: Having Dementors > around would make producing a patronus harder, but if a Dementor > would have suddenly appeared during after Harry's patronus in his > DADA O.W.L., I have no doubt that Harry's Patronus, created > from a bit of self-righteous contempt, could have successfully > charged and scared off that Dementor... easily. Thoughts? > > vmonte: > I don't know Kemper. If creating an effective patronus were that > simple then anyone could do it, no? Harry wasn't really fighting off > a dementor during his O.W.L.S. was he? > > "You made that dementor on the train back off," said Harry suddenly. > "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." (P188, PoA) > > Lupin admits that it gets harder the more dementors there are. How > far then can a self-righteous memory take you? ...snip... > But self-righteous contempt does not explain how Harry was able to > knock down the "swarming dementors" at the end of PoA (IMO). It's > more than likely that it has to do with the love and goodness that > Harry represents/carries. > > "Dementors are among the foulest creatures that walk this earth. They > infest the darkest, filthiest places, they glory in decay and > despair, they drain peace, hope, and happiness out of the air around > them. Get too near a dementor and every good feeling, every happy > memory will be sucked out of you." (P187, PoA) > > Self-righteous contempt is probably all you need to create a > messenger patronus. In that case, Snape is more than capable of > creating one. Kemper now: I implied earlier that it would be harder to produce a corporal Patronus with Dementors around, but thanks for the Lupin quote to verify that ;-) Your quote from PoA got me thinking more. Lupin says, 'There are--certain defenses one can use.' Defenses. Plural. Lupin appears to uses his Patronus In HBP, we see that Snape has a knack for making, at least potions, better than the text book. He invented Sectumsempra. Is it not possible and probable that an ESE!Snape or a DDmtat!Snape would improve an existing charm/spell or develop one on his own to deal with Dementors that is even better than the norm of Expecto Patronum? Harry is open to learning form the Half Blood Prince and is shut to learning from Professor Snape: though both taught him about bezoar, it is with the HBP that Harry learns it. Harry is at his most resentful regarding Snape in his sixth year. It is easy for Harry to disregard what might be an excellent spell from Professor Snape. Vivian, how willing do you think Harry would be to try the spell against Dementors from the HBP? Kemper [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 11 00:06:38 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 00:06:38 -0000 Subject: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort (was: Re: Draco's culpability...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139941 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > Draco gains no lethal skills. That interests me. > >>a_svirn: > Why is it of so great interest? So what if Draco didn't learn > any "lethal skills"? > Betsy Hp: Because it doesn't fit neatly into the "Draco is a coldhearted, murdering little bastard" theory. At all. JKR could easily have had Draco creating a magical bomb; instead she has him restoring a piece of furniture. It backs up, IMO, Dumbledore's contention that Draco is not a killer. A killer would have worked on something that kills. Draco worked on opening a door. > >>a_svirn: > Are you sure that "benign" and "assassination" belong to the same > sentence? > Betsy Hp: They belong in the same sentence as much as "killer" and "furniture restorer" belong in the same sentence. And you're right, they *don't* go well together. Which is my point, really. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Though I think Dumbledore was thinking a bit higher than the > > court of law. > >>a_svirn: > Could you elaborate on that one, please? It sounds kind of cryptic. Betsy Hp: I've touched on this in other posts. I think I'm most specific in message #137075 where I say: "There is powerful imagery invoked in the three times Dumbledore gives Draco the time to act and then tells him he is not a killer. I'm not sure if JKR had this particular idea in mind while she was writing, but once I noticed the pattern of three I immediately thought of Peter who three times denies Christ before the Crucifixion and then, after the Resurrection, is able to redeem himself when Christ asks Peter three times if he loves him. (I believe this takes place in the book of John in the Bible.) But even if she didn't, there's a certain power within the number three. Draco's act of confession, Dumbledore's benediction, the repetitive nature of their exchange... I think Draco leaves this encounter effectively blessed by Dumbledore. Proven, I think, by Draco not giving into the demands of the Death Eaters. (I don't want to take this imagery too far. I think it implies a certain symbolism, but I don't think it's supposed to be taken literally.)" > >>Phoenixgod: > > Dumbledore has no authority to give forgiveness or pass a > benediction to Draco. > > JKR even says in one of her interviews that DD isn't a > metaphor for jesus and even he admits to his own falibility so I > think he neatly cuts off his own confessional authority. Betsy Hp: Within the Christian tradition one doesn't need to be Jesus or infallibal to hear confession or to give a benediction. Far from it, actually. Any authority Dumbledore has comes from his love for Draco and his interest in his welfare. Actually, the way I read it (and others may well disagree since this is getting into my own belief system) Dumbledore opens the way for Draco to forgive himself. After all, it's Draco who fears he's a killer. It's Draco who's suffered the most for the path he's been taken down. It's Draco who is most in danger, IMO. Dumbledore gives Draco the chance to choose a different way. Which is well within his rights as Headmaster of Draco's school, both morally and legally, I think. > >>Phoenixgod: > One thing I don't think I heard you say was what sort of punishment > Draco should recieve for his actions. Even if there were mitigating > circumstances there should be a consequence to his actions. After > all, it wasn't like he was being held at gunpoint. He kept up his > actions even after he was safely behind the wards of hogwarts and > he could have gone to dumbledore at any time. Should he have his > wand snapped? should he be imprisoned? What should happen to him > according to you? Betsy Hp: First of all, it's *exactly* like he was being held at gunpoint. (Well, wandpoint if we want to be fully literal.) And he *wasn't* safe behind the wards. Even Dumbledore knows that. He specifically tells Draco so on the Tower. It's why Dumbledore couldn't approach him. And not only is Draco's life on the line, but his mother's as well. (Why does this always get overlooked? It's curious.) As to punishment, how about having his chest and face slashed open and nearly dying on a bathroom floor? There's a certain poetic justice to it, don't you think? And, as Pippin points out, he's taken out of Hogwarts, away from his friends, and possibly given to Voldemort. That's more than enough to my mind. (Though I'm betting JKR will have more things in store for Draco. She does seem to enjoy making him bleed.) Now here's a question for you. What punishment should the twins face for nearly killing Montague? (Who they attacked on purpose and for which they've yet to show the slightest remorse.) Betsy Hp who pulled and snipped from different messages on this thread so may have put things out of order From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Sun Sep 11 00:38:27 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 00:38:27 -0000 Subject: Believing Harry is not a Horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139942 Hi Geoff: > Geoff originally wrote: >It's the structure where I may differ. As a Christian, I accept >the concept of "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with >all your mind and with all your soul". >To that end, I see the transfer of powers and memories that you >list as being intellectual - i.e. of the mind. I do not see them as >being to do with the soul and thus do not imagine bits and pieces of >Voldemort's soul moving over to Harry. >Saraquel replied: >you appear to me, to be disagreeing with the horcrux idea > because you personally don't like it. Was that what you meant? >Geoff replied: >First of all, I have not disagreed with the idea of a Horcrux; what >i have done is to express my own conviction that Harry is not one. >Let me return to that later. Saraquel: First, I think my post was somewhat ambiguous as to what I was questioning, for which I apologise. The idea that I was really interested in was about whether the soul is different to the mind/intellect/personality/Psyche. (let's use the word psyche here, although I must admit, I don't know the full implications of that word.) If, in JKRs world, it is not the psyche, then, what is it? A container perhaps? What is it's nature/purpose? It is this question which has puzzled me when thinking about the soul. If the soul is greater (for want of a better word) than the psyche, then what is the nature of that greatness, and is there any evidence in canon that can point to that? For the soul, (in the world of the books rather than in Christian belief) to be just a container seems to me to be doing it an even greater disservice than equating it with the psyche. When I looked at the evidence, it seemed I could only find canon to support the Psyche theory. What would really interest me is if someone could look at it with a different pair of eyes and interpret what is there in a different way. I do agree with you, that it simply being the psyche seems somehow inadequate, and I hope that JKR will reveal to us in book 7, that her interpretation of soul has qualities of the numinous. Maybe we will see this when Harry destroys a Horcrux, or more likely we will see it in the final showdown. However, my personal disappointment is not the issue here, I'm trying to get a feel for how JKR has interpreted the soul and my original post on the subject has definitely helped me, at least, to an easier understanding of the whole issue. Much, but not all, of what I am now going to write was in my original post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139828 but I shall address your points so that we have stuff all in one place, with the points taken individually. >Geoff wrote: >I believe that our whole being reflects our personality but >after death, it is our soul which will continue into "the next great >adventure". Saraquel: >From what Luna says to Harry at the end of OotP, and from the whispering which Harry hears beyond the veil, it would appear that the mind (originating the words/sounds) and some sort of body (whispering them) is also in evidence beyond the veil. I do think that the body is separate, but this topic is covered by me in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139763 >Geoff wrote: >We do not know precisely what form a Horcrux takes. Is it tangible? >Is it invisible? How do we know that it is there? I have a mental >vision of it being like a piece of A4 paper which is being torn >into smaller bits; a silly idea but it is one that has stuck with >me. As a mathematician myself, I would agree with those who have >suggested that it doesn't divide itself neatly into fractions of >the whole. Saraquel: I think we need to distinguish between a horcrux-as-container and the actual soul fragment. I'm not going to talk about how the horcrux is made, only about the soul. I had the image of a little chip of rock :-), but that has now changed quite dramatically. Let's look at the description Voldemort gives to the DEs in GoF of the time after GH, when he was bodiless. UK ed, p566 and 567 "Aaah pain beyond pain, my friends; nothing could have prepared me for it. I was ripped from my body, I was less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost but still, I was alive. What I was, even I do not know Nevertheless, I was as powerless as the weakest creature alive, and without the means to help myself for I had no body, and every spell that might have helped me, required the use of a wand I remember only forcing myself, sleeplessly, endlessly, second by second, to exist " Then further down the page. "I sometimes inhabited animals but I was little better off inside them than as pure spirit, for their bodies were ill-adapted to perform magic and my possession of them shortened their lives " He remembers only forcing himself ? this implies to me that he had his mind, his will and his memory (he could remember spells) still intact. The pain beyond pain, could imply emotions, but maybe that was only referring to the process of being ripped from his body. However, I think how he describes the whole experience implies that emotions were present. In the first part of the quote he calls himself ? less than spirit, and later uses the expression pure spirit. I interpreted that as JKR trying to imply here that he is having difficulty describing what form he was in. Normally, our body defines our form for us, but without that, what form (in terms of the familiar three dimensions) would we describe our psyche as having? I don't think it exists as a 3 dimensional form. He says he is less than a ghost, I took that to mean that he does not even have a ghostly body. His having to will himself to exist at every second, I think, is the key phrase to interpret here. I took that to mean that he was all the time trying to keep a sense of himself, a sense of identity. He was having to pull together the wisps, for want of a better word of thoughts and feelings which were floating around in the ether. Yes, I agree with Voldemort ? it's bloody hard to describe what it might be like! The words, spirit and pure spirit, conjure up a vision of a gas, rather than a solid. Ceridwen posted something up-thread about the soul being more gas like in structure. Although I don't feel that the thing Voldemort is describing has any physical component at all, and that is why he finds it so difficult to describe. >Geoff wrote: >I have been exercised over the question of what happened to >Voldemort's remaining fragment when he was disembodied at Godric's >Hollow. Dumbledore's comment, quoted above, seems to suggest that it >remained within him which again raises the question of how tangible >is a soul? Which is also an interesting question within the real >world. >Were it not for Dumbledore's comment and the fact that we are told >in POA that a person without a soul is effectively an empty shell, I >would lean to the idea that Voldemort lost his last soul fragment at >this point - but not to Harry. He is certainly a person who could >truly be described as soulless. Saraquel: This part of your post really interests me. I can't separate soul and psyche as you would like to do, but find yourself unable by canon. To me, the core of who we are, defining that as soul, is essential to any sort of experience of being alive. If we look at the description of what happens to someone whose soul is sucked out, PoA p183 (Lupin) "You can exist without your soul, you know, as long as your brain and heart are still working. But you'll have no sense of self any more, no memory, no anything. There's no chance at all of recovery. You'll just ? exist. As an empty shell." Here, I think it's clear that with your soul goes all thought and feeling. I interpreted that to mean that the heart and brain were needed to keep the body going, but the brain is not being used creatively in any way. So, if I'm right ? I think there is some very small marginal room for interpretation over the use of the brain to interpret that thought still exists, but "no anything' would seem to contradict that ? when the soul goes, psyche goes with it. So yes, Voldemort is not soulless, but I do agree with you in terms of the spirit of the word. Language is so hopeless at expressing these non-concrete things, don't you think? >Geoff wrote: >He is obsessed with power, he is obsessed with killing Harry, he >shows no love or compassion or feeling for anyone else. Saraquel: Following through on my train of thought about the soul/psyche being non physical, then tearing it would not necessarily mean measurable fragments. More, split and fragmented sense of self/personality. Introducing conflicting and disjointed sense of self ? perhaps multiple personality (Here, I'm just going to jump onto a small hobbyhorse of mine ? the term schizophrenia here is *not* appropriate. Hearing voices etc is very different from split personality. In schizophrenia, the individual is trying to cope with a perceived reality of the world that differs from those around them.) This presumably is what would happen when you murder someone ? you have to separate the moral judgement from the impulse to murder in order to say to yourself that what you have done is OK, or you are left with terrible guilt, which is a sign of conflict. If a Horcrux is made by siphoning off a part of one's identity, then the sense of identity gets more and more limited. This is clearly what we have seen in the case of Voldemort. Tom Riddle presents as a much fuller, rounder personality (to me anyway) than the later Voldemort, whom I have always seen as a rather cardboard cut-out figure. A case can be made for Voldemort having placed anything soft in his character, anything that might have prompted humanity of feeling, within his horcruxes, leaving himself only the traits that you described above. He has so limited his perceptions, that he possibly no longer has even the capacity to recognise the significance of Harry's power of wholeness and love. >Geoff wrote: >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) >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. Saraquel: When I thought of the soul as something physical, I too thought Harry could not be a horcrux (there were a lot of other reasons too). But now I'm thinking of the soul in terms of psyche, I'm not so sure. And the reason only magnifies and enhances the importance of choice. If the soul is manifested as sense of self and personality, then by making choices we can renounce, in effect destroy, the impulses to do evil. It actually makes the case for Harry being some sort of horcrux quite appealing, in that, in order to destroy Voldemort's last horcrux he has to change himself and make the choice of good over evil and renounce his current thirst for vengeance. So I find this quite liberating, because, like you, I want Harry to survive book 7! Just a few thoughts that have occurred to me whilst constructing this post. I personally think it is clear that JKR is including the psyche in her definition of soul. But that the soul can be more than the sum of its parts is also possible. The power of love that DD talks of, which I have always thought of as divine love, is within Harry. Lily also found it in herself when she sacrificed her life. We are told by JKR that all Lily did was step in front of Harry, she did not cast any spells. So either she drew that love to her, or it existed within her. If it did exist within her, then I reckon the soul is the place where it would be, or even, to prevent us from falling into soul=container, (which both of us hate) the soul *is* divine love. So maybe the soul in the books is more than just the psyche, maybe it is also that spark of divine being ? I really hope so :-) Saraquel From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 11 01:02:07 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 01:02:07 -0000 Subject: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort (was: Re: Draco's culpability...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139943 > Betsy Hp: > A killer would have worked on something that > kills. Draco worked on opening a door. Alla: Draco worked on opening the door,which led something or somebody who kills to Hogwarts. Very same thing in my mind. It is not like he worked on opening the door just for the fun if it, he knew perfectly well, what will come out of this door, IMO. So, I am not quite sure why he gets a pass from you since he used less deadly means which led to the very same end as if he would work on a bomb for Dumbledore, > Betsy Hp: It's Draco > who's suffered the most for the path he's been taken down. It's > Draco who is most in danger, IMO. Dumbledore gives Draco the chance > to choose a different way. Which is well within his rights as > Headmaster of Draco's school, both morally and legally, I think. Alla: I thought that Katie and Ron and eventually Dumbledore who suffered the most for the path Draco took. As to Dumbledore's right , well as I said upthread, I believe it was within Dumbledore's right to forgive Draco for assasination attempt on him, but not on Katie and Ron. I am talking specifically about moral aspect, because maybe indeed Dumbledore had some legal authority, I am not sure. >> Betsy Hp: > First of all, it's *exactly* like he was being held at gunpoint. Alla: Well, one can look at it like that sure, but it is not a fact, because I see no sign of any duress in Draco bragging to his friends on the train. Betsy: > As to punishment, how about having his chest and face slashed open > and nearly dying on a bathroom floor? There's a certain poetic > justice to it, don't you think? Alla: Sure, I can go with that scene being another example of vicarious retribution ( Alla waves at Guinger, but unfortunately does not have a link to that great post of hers, where she developed the concept) But no, I don't think that was enough. Betsy: And, as Pippin points out, he's > taken out of Hogwarts, away from his friends, and possibly given to > Voldemort. That's more than enough to my mind. (Though I'm betting > JKR will have more things in store for Draco. She does seem to > enjoy making him bleed.) Alla: I KNOW what I want for Draco, that is if he is truly remorseful of course. I liked Phoenixgod suggestion about stripping Draco of all his wealth of course. That would be very neat for dear Draco to go poor and finally feel how hard that was for Ron. But I know what I want to see even more - I want Draco to face Katie and Ron and beg for their forgiveness. That is exactly what I want to see Snape doing, come to think of it - beg for Harry forgiveness for making him an orphan, but I doubt that especially as to Snape I am going to get my wish. Betsy: > Now here's a question for you. What punishment should the twins > face for nearly killing Montague? (Who they attacked on purpose and > for which they've yet to show the slightest remorse.) > Alla: The small difference of course is that I don't remember twins planning assacination attempt on Montague. JMO, Alla. From donjokat.kat at verizon.net Sun Sep 11 00:54:02 2005 From: donjokat.kat at verizon.net (Katharine) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 20:54:02 -0400 Subject: JKR interviews - Harry will be at Hogwarts in book 7 References: Message-ID: <00ed01c5b66b$4dc37c20$c533fea9@DonJoKat> No: HPFGUIDX 139944 LPD: After reading some early interviews I'm more confident about Harry being at Hogwarts at some stage and in some capacity in book 7. Some interesting quotes from JKR to support this Katharine: However it's also possible that when JK said "one book for each year of school" she meant one book for each year that he's supposed to be at school--in other words, the next book would have been his seventh year at Hogwarts, but since it's either closing or if it's open he's dropping out, his seventh year is one in which he does not attend school (am I manking sense here?), though I think he will go back to visit and look for artifacts relating to the Hoarcruxes and DD, etc--maybe he'll visit DD's grave too, to get strength for his final confrontation. -Katharine From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 11 01:20:38 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 01:20:38 -0000 Subject: Characters and the revelation model (Was: Re: Depth?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139945 > Betsy Hp: > Exactly! Thank you, Alla, this backs my point up beautifully. Alla: Erm... That is one way to look at it of course. Betsy: > JKR fell down when it came to Ginny's character, and the cries of > foul throughout fandom show it. I see enough evidence in the books > to think that JKR really did see Ginny as the spitfire girl from the > get-go, but she bungled in sharing that information with her > readers. Alla: And here we have exactly what Nora was talking about, IMO. Did JKR fell down when it came to Ginny's character OR we filled in the blanks incorrectly ( and I am definitely including myself here) and then we are crying foul, because we ASSUMED that JKR would be going different road with Ginny? After all, Harry did NOT pay much attention to Ginny at all, so it is quite reasonable to think that he did not know her till he actually spent time with her. Betsy: > *Friendship* on the other hand, is a big thing with JKR, and she's > been so careful with her handling of the Marauders and Snape and > their interactions with each other so far I seriously doubt she'd > screw up as badly with them. Alla: Yep, friendships ARE big thing to JKR and that is why I think that friendship between Marauders may turn out better than you expect it to turn out. Not perfect, no, but something which had all roots for genuine friendship, but was torn apart by war. JMO of course, Alla. From sherriola at earthlink.net Sun Sep 11 01:51:21 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 18:51:21 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Characters and the revelation model (Was: Re: Depth?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003b01c5b673$509fa060$b924f204@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 139946 Betsy: > JKR fell down when it came to Ginny's character, and the cries of > foul throughout fandom show it. I see enough evidence in the books > to think that JKR really did see Ginny as the spitfire girl from the > get-go, but she bungled in sharing that information with her > readers. Alla: And here we have exactly what Nora was talking about, IMO. Did JKR fell down when it came to Ginny's character OR we filled in the blanks incorrectly ( and I am definitely including myself here) and then we are crying foul, because we ASSUMED that JKR would be going different road with Ginny? Sherry now: I think you are right on target, Alla. After all, not all fans cried foul over Ginny. i saw it coming from book one, even more so in book two, more in four and absolutely in five. i know lots of people didn't, but I wasn't a bit surprised by Ginny's character development or the ship with Harry. The clues were there for some of us. So, i don't think JKR didn't do her job well in this case. Sherry From donjokat.kat at verizon.net Sun Sep 11 01:25:26 2005 From: donjokat.kat at verizon.net (Katharine) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 21:25:26 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Characters and the revelation model (Was: Re: Depth?) References: Message-ID: <00f701c5b66f$b0d87cd0$c533fea9@DonJoKat> No: HPFGUIDX 139947 > >>Betsy Hp: > > JKR certainly leaves enough holes to allow a reader to go > > astray. But I really don't think she cheats in what she does > > definitively state. > >>Alla: > One word - Ginny. Now, I love her and Harry together and I > swallowed new Ginny, because I muttered to myself that Harry did > not really notice her and that is why everything is possible, but > I really did not see any signs of new Ginny prior to OOP. > Betsy Hp: Exactly! Thank you, Alla, this backs my point up beautifully. JKR fell down when it came to Ginny's character, and the cries of foul throughout fandom show it. I see enough evidence in the books to think that JKR really did see Ginny as the spitfire girl from the get-go, but she bungled in sharing that information with her readers. Frankly, I think JKR sees the romances as a bit boring so fleshing out the character of Ginny (as Harry's prize) was never top of her list. [Just a note: I'm talking purely of character here, not the ship.] Katharine: I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed the emergence of Super!Ginny Sue in OoTP and HBP--in which she goes from being a largely peripheral, average person, to beign perfectly perfect in every way--suddenly she's gorgeous, excellent at Quidditch a la Charlie Weasley and Harry, a female version of Fred and George, is the Queen of Bat Bogey Hexes, and is one of the most popular girls at school to boot. In her infamous interview JK said that she hoped that the audience gradually came to realize, just as Harry did, that Ginny was the perfect girl for him. Well, it's hard for it to have been a gradual change when Ginny is hardly in the first four books--even in CoS, in which she's the one actually opening the chamber of secrets, she has less pagetime than in OoTP. Then suddenly JK gives Ginny a dramatic literary makeover in OoTP, and suddenly Ginny's everywhere, and then in HBP, Harry suddenly has a monster inside him telling him to be with Ginny, out of the blue, when at the end of OoTP he brusquely tells Ginny to go away when she tries to help--this being after things fall apart with Cho and the Cho goggles are removed. So yes, JK definitely did mess up as far as introducing the "real Ginny" to the readers in a gradual and realistic fashion. But then she messed up in actually presenting Ginny's new superhero self as well, by taking the old literary rule of thumb "Show, not tell" and turning it around--with Ginny, JK "tells, not shows." For example, to date we have not yet once seen Ginny perform one of her infamous bat bogey hexes, nor much magic at all really--we've just heard about it from other characters (where as with Hermione we've seen her brilliantly perform magic countless times--yet Ginny is supposedly just as good of a witch, despite never really seeing Ginny perform). Then there's the quidditch--before HBP we never see Ginny play a quidditch game--we just hear about how good she is, and how well she did. As far as JK finding the whole romance business boring, however, I can't imagine that to be too true--otherwise why would she in turn make the romance plotline at least a quarter or probably more of HBP's overall plot, so that especially in the middle of the book it seemed like one was reading "Sweet Valley Hogwarts" rather than a Harry Potter book? And why would she say in the infamous interview that she had loads of fun while writing it all? -Katharine From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Sun Sep 11 03:27:20 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 03:27:20 -0000 Subject: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort (was: Re: Draco's culpability...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139948 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > > > Draco gains no lethal skills. That interests me. > > > >>a_svirn: > > Why is it of so great interest? So what if Draco didn't learn > > any "lethal skills"? > > > > Betsy Hp: > Because it doesn't fit neatly into the "Draco is a coldhearted, > murdering little bastard" theory. At all. JKR could easily have > had Draco creating a magical bomb; instead she has him restoring a > piece of furniture. It backs up, IMO, Dumbledore's contention that > Draco is not a killer. A killer would have worked on something that > kills. Draco worked on opening a door. Marainne: I have to jump in here. Draco is not a killer at this point simply because others have prevented it. Sure, Draco's target is DD, but the only reason that either Katie Bell or Ron did not die is due to happenstance. The only reason Draco is not a coldhearted, murdering little bastard is that his unintended victims just happened to be rescued. Draco worked on opening a door, but he also worked on a lethal necklace and poisoned mead. Betsy Hp: > Within the Christian tradition one doesn't need to be Jesus or > infallibal to hear confession or to give a benediction. Far from > it, actually. Any authority Dumbledore has comes from his love for > Draco and his interest in his welfare. Actually, the way I read it > (and others may well disagree since this is getting into my own > belief system) Dumbledore opens the way for Draco to forgive > himself. After all, it's Draco who fears he's a killer. It's Draco > who's suffered the most for the path he's been taken down. It's > Draco who is most in danger, IMO. Dumbledore gives Draco the chance > to choose a different way. Which is well within his rights as > Headmaster of Draco's school, both morally and legally, I think. Marianne: Well, sure Draco may fear he is a killer. His actions could have killed either Katie or Ron (or both), let alone Dumbledore. I have a little problem with the idea that Draco has suffered the most for the path he's been taken down. Has he suffered more than his unintended victims? > > >>Phoenixgod: > > One thing I don't think I heard you say was what sort of punishment > > Draco should recieve for his actions. Even if there were mitigating > > circumstances there should be a consequence to his actions. After > > all, it wasn't like he was being held at gunpoint. He kept up his > > actions even after he was safely behind the wards of hogwarts and > > he could have gone to dumbledore at any time. Should he have his > > wand snapped? should he be imprisoned? What should happen to him > > according to you? > > Betsy Hp: > First of all, it's *exactly* like he was being held at gunpoint. > (Well, wandpoint if we want to be fully literal.) And he *wasn't* > safe behind the wards. Even Dumbledore knows that. He specifically > tells Draco so on the Tower. It's why Dumbledore couldn't approach > him. And not only is Draco's life on the line, but his mother's as > well. (Why does this always get overlooked? It's curious.) > > As to punishment, how about having his chest and face slashed open > and nearly dying on a bathroom floor? There's a certain poetic > justice to it, don't you think? And, as Pippin points out, he's > taken out of Hogwarts, away from his friends, and possibly given to > Voldemort. That's more than enough to my mind. (Though I'm betting > JKR will have more things in store for Draco. She does seem to > enjoy making him bleed.) Marianne: Draco has always had the option of refusing to play Voldemort's game. Sure, he's held at gun (wand) point. He can still always say "No." Had he refused at some point during the school year to continue on his quest to kill DD, then that would be the end. Sure, he might have died and in addition Narcissa may have been killed. But, that would have undercut Vmort's designs on killing DD, and would perhaps have benefitted the WW to a great degree than what has happened at least in part due to Draco's pursuit of his quest. Betsy: > Now here's a question for you. What punishment should the twins > face for nearly killing Montague? (Who they attacked on purpose and > for which they've yet to show the slightest remorse.) Marianne: Whatever is acceptable in the fullest extent of the law. Yes, I think that Fred and George deserve punishment for what they did. I also think that, so far, Draco has gotten away relatively lightly for his sins. As has DE Snape. I want punishment for all of them. From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sun Sep 11 03:30:50 2005 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 03:30:50 -0000 Subject: FILK: The Horcrux-Hunting Song Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139949 The Horcrux-Hunting Song (HBP, Chap. 23) To the tune of The Hunting Song by Tom Lehrer MIDI and text at: http://members.aol.com/quentncree/lehrer/hunting.htm Dedicated to the two game wardens, seven hunters and the pure- bred Guernsey cow who died nearly 50 years ago in the making of the original song THE SCENE: The Headmaster's Office. Having witnessed Slughorn's memory, DUMBLEDORE shares with Harry his speculations concerning Voldemort's Horcruxes. DUMBLEDORE: His comeback was a bummer So I started off the summer On a hunt for some horcrux As Lord Voldy ran amuck But now I know where Voldemort did his soul-fragments stake: Things from Founders, an old diary and a snake. It became quite an enigma For I truly couldn't figure Out how Voldemort contrived To ensure that he'd survive But now I see with clarity things that were once opaque: Things from Founders, an old diary and a snake. My hand became quite blackened Within the old Gaunt shack when A Slytherin ring I had to defuse It is one of age's defects, how it slows the reflex, But now the horcruxes are lessened by twos! There's just one way to subdue it And the pair of us must do it Ev'ry `crux we must uproot ? then, when Voldy runs, we shoot! So there's four more things that the two of us must take: Cup and locket, stuff from Godric, and a long green gruesome snake. - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Sep 11 03:59:18 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 03:59:18 -0000 Subject: Dealing with Dementors: Harry v Snape, Love v Happy In-Reply-To: <700201d405091015455c1bd813@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139950 Kemper wrote: Your quote from PoA got me thinking more. Lupin says, 'There are-- certain defenses one can use.' Defenses. Plural. Lupin appears to uses his Patronus In HBP, we see that Snape has a knack for making, at least potions, better than the text book. He invented Sectumsempra. Is it not possible and probable that an ESE!Snape or a DDmtat!Snape would improve an existing charm/spell or develop one on his own to deal with Dementors that is even better than the norm of Expecto Patronum? Harry is open to learning form the Half Blood Prince and is shut to learning from Professor Snape: though both taught him about bezoar, it is with the HBP that Harry learns it. Harry is at his most resentful regarding Snape in his sixth year. It is easy for Harry to disregard what might be an excellent spell from Professor Snape. Vivian, how willing do you think Harry would be to try the spell against Dementors from the HBP? vmonte: Kemper, do you happen to know what page (in the HBP book) this scene is in? I cannot find it. Do we know that it is an entirely new spell or that Harry just disagrees with Snape's theory/method regarding the spell? I honestly don't remember. I would venture a guess that Harry probably has more experience in using this spell than Snape does. In what capacity would Snape have used this spell, not including sending messages? Nothing really compares to actual practical experience, IMO. Vivian From catlady at wicca.net Sun Sep 11 04:42:23 2005 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 04:42:23 -0000 Subject: sex/VanishingCabinet/SoulsEtc/Badger/Ch.2/ThinAir/Choices/Stag/deadHouseElves Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139951 houyhnhnm wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139608 : << In fact there is such an absence of adult sexuality in the books, that until HBP, with its delicate references to Merope's interesting condition, I wasn't sure that wizards reproduced in the ordinary mammalian fashion. >> Maybe I just have a dirty mind -- when Molly in GoF reminisced of being out to 4am on a date with Arthur in their school days, I felt it was obvious how they had lost track of so much time, and I have suspected that Harry and Neville were both 'accidents'. Vivian wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139906 : << Also, it's interesting that Zabini's mother is a sexual predator. She's been married "7" times and each man dies mysteriously. (Black widow spider comes to mind.) I think this kid is a sexual predator, too. >> I think Blaise's mother is a financial predator rather than a sexual predator, because sex is her method but cruel sexual gratification is not her goal; inheriting the rich wizards' fortunes is her goal. Which kid is a sexual predator, Blaise? Did he do anything in HBP except stand around looking pretty and saying racist remarks? Susan O'Bones wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139695 : << Up until the vanishing cabinet at Hogwarts got broken, it and its partner in B&B would have been what they became again in HBP -- a direct route into the school from B&B, a very Dark and nasty place. For all the magical charms and enchantments that have always been protecting Hogwarts, here is a HUGE security hole. What in the name of Merlin was that thing doing in the school? How long has it been there? How did it get there? Who brought it in? Dark and nasty wizards, no doubt. Lucius Malfoy and his ilk. >> Maybe Phineas Nigellus owned the pair and installed one in his office or his sleeping quarters at Hogwarts, from which it was removed when one of his successor redecorated, and installed the other someplace he wanted quick access to, maybe the Black House (12 Grimmauld Place), from which one of his heirs sold it to B&B. I have trouble imagining Phineas Nigellus giving up his dignity by *crawling* through a cabinet just to avoid using a Portkey or walking out of the Hogwars grounds to Apparate, so maybe he had set it up for someone to come frequently to him. Who? With my above-mentioned dirty mind, I imagine a girlfriend or boyfriend he's keeping secret from his wife -- in which case, there had better not be any paintings in the room they use. Or maybe it's for *sending* annoying students away to someplace where they'll be punished worse than by Filch's predecessor and 'the old punishments'. Is 'Vanishing Cabinet' the illogical name of cabinets that always come in pairs and act as Transportation Cabinets, Short Cut Cabinets, Secret Passage Cabinets? Or is a REAL Vanishing Cabinet a singleton that serves as an excellent garbage disposal, and each of these two Wormhole Cabinets was mistaken for one Vanishing Cabinet? Saraquel wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139703 : << Who is wondering if she is fighting her way through thicket and bramble only to find herself at a dead end with a sheer cliff in front of her, and everyone else looking up at her from the path below, thinking, Why? >> I *hope* you don't find a dead end. I think that magic power is outside (as you said, like the ether) and a person or object 'having' magic power really mean having an ability to *direct* and *focus* magic power. I would like to understand the relationn between mind, emotions, soul, memories, and the ability to use magic power, so I hope you discover it and report back to us. Saraquel wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139763 : << (memory is a property of soul) >> Lupin said of the Dementor's Kiss: "You can exist without your soul, you know, as long as your brain and heart are still working. But you'll have no sense of self any more, no memory, no ... anything. There's no chance at all of recovery. You'll just ... exist. As an empty shell." Someone on another list commented: << Well, Lupin definitely seems to be saying that the soul and the mind [mind = self] are the same thing. But then, how can Lord Voldemort retain all his powers and memories, as Dumbledore says he does, if his has ripped his soul into small pieces and has hardly any of it left? >> To which I replied: << I think Lupin meant that the mind and the sense of self cannot survive without a support-system, normally a soul, but possibly a mind could be transferred to a magical device like the diary without transferring a bit of soul with it. >> (TMR might have put his memories into the Diary before he learned about Horcruces and put a bit of his soul into it, too.) << And that memories cannot survive without their support-system, normally a mind, but we have seen them survive in Pensieves and bottles. But if a Dementor sucks out your soul, there is no time to transfer your mind and memories to a magical artifact before they die for lack of their support-system. >> Since then, I've been wondering if a DK victim is more like a person in a coma or like a zombie. A zombie has no sense of self and no memory EXCEPT it can obey fairly simply orders like 'weed this field'. << "However, he was the able-bodied servant I needed, and poor wizard though he is, Wormtail was able to follow the instructions I gave him, which would return me to a rudimentary, weak body of my own, a body I would be able to inhabit while awaiting the essential ingredients for true rebirth a spell or two of my own invention ... a little help from my dear Nagini a potion concocted from unicorn blood, and the snake venom Nagini provided I was soon returned to an almost human form." (snip) "the means that I used to break the Memory Charm upon her (Bertha Jorkins) were powerful, and when I had wxtracted all useful information from her, her mind and body were both damaged beyond repair. She had now served her purpose. I could not possess her. I disposed of her." >> I am very fond of the theory that LV either used poor Bertha's womb as incubator to grow his UglyBaby!Voldie body (with Pettigrew semen as an ingredient along with unicorn blood and snake venom), or used her body as raw material to make a Frankenbaby body, but you seemed to have disproved that with canon, alas. Of course, I also was quite certain that Fourth Man Avery was true. << why Voldemort looks like a snake >> Voldie has many connections to snakes, being a Parselmouth, loving Nagini more than he loves anyone else, and looking like a snake. I don't doubt that his Animagus form would be a snake, but I think the underlying reason for his many connections to snake-ness is because Snake is a traditional symbol of immortality (because of the metaphor of shedding its skin). Ali McJ wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139712 : << Why a Badger? >> I always remember a bit in the T. H. White 'King Arthur' story. When (w)Art was an unimportant boy, Merlin educated him by Transfiguring him into different animals, including a badger; then when he pulled the Sword from the Stone, all the animals reminded him of their lessons, and IIRC the Badger's reminder was about physical strength: "Put your back into it!" Which would go along with Helga Hufflepuff being a hard worker. It's an English badger, related to weasels, who digs in the earth to make its underground home, like La Gatta Lucianese said *miao*, not a Japanese badger, related to dogs, who likes to eat fruit and transform into a human in order to drink alcohol and play tricks on people. Wikipedia says some interesting things about badgers: <> <> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badger_%28animal%29 Catkind wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139739 : << Then there's my favourite Chapter 2. Firstly, we see that JKR *does* ask herself the same sort of questions that readers ask. Bellatrix's list of questions and Snape's replies to it could have come straight off this group. >> I thought they *did*! This group or Mugglenet or Leaky Cauldron or Lexicon forums or letters to her c/o her publishers. My reaction to reading that part was a big happy grin to think that Rowling was speaking to *us* obsessive fans by answering our questions. Saraquel wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139763 : << One thing that has always puzzled me about the Potterverse, is the apparent ease with which objects can be magicked out of thin air. From chairs and inanimate objects (many examples, DD in Harry's hearing) to organic things like food (Sandwiches in CoS) right up to living birds (Hermione in HBP). >> Many of those things could real objects transported from another place by magic rather than conjured objects created ex nihilo by magic. The chairs and squashy purple sleeping bags would have been in storerooms, the food in the kitchen (already prepared and put on the plate by House Elves). I dunno if I can argue that Hermione's birds were transported from another place... Vivian wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139771 : << JKR's comments that "it's our choices that determine who we are" is also something that we should never forget. >> Did JKR say that about 'our choices determine who we are' in an interview? As Cathy Drolet has posted, Dumbledore said 'show', not 'determine', as in the following ancient and nearly perfect post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/23598 From: "Aberforth's Goat" Date: Sat Aug 4, 2001 12:47 pm Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Calvinism << Not so fast! The CoS passage actually has some of the most "Calvinistic" passages in the canon. In fact, it was that passage that got me thinking about this. Let's pull it out for exegesis: * "Exactly," said Dumbledore, beaming once more. "Which * makes you very different from Tom Riddle. It is our choices, * Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." * Harry sat motionless in his chair, stunned. "If you want proof, * Harry, that you belong in Gryffindor, I suggest you look more * closely at this." [....] * * "Only a true Gryffindor could have pulled that out of the hat, * Harry." So: Harry's choices *reveal* something--they peel the layers off the onion--they show us the person he actually is. His true identity, his soul, his platonic essence. And that person is, fundamentally, a Gryffindor. He may not even have known it, but there's a white hat in his soul and when it comes to a crisis, he'll wear it. Elyse wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139838 : << why was James a stag? Out of all the animals he could have been, for instance a lion for bravery - would have brought out the regal showman in him alongwith his courage. >> A stag with his antlers is traditionally as much of a symbol for regal showmanship, courage, and violence as a lion is. Long ago there were whole messes of posts about medieval people believed that Stags were big enemies and defeaters of Serpents and therefore used Stag as a symbol of Christ. Linda Budd wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139884 : << houselves heads are mounted on their masters' walls (like deer heads) when they die; I believe that was in book 4, Black's castle. >> That's a Black family tradition, which Sirius said was started by his Aunt Elladora. I don't believe anyone else disposes of the remains of deceased House Elves that way -- I don't Lucius allowed Narcissa to import that custom to Malfoy Manor, and if there were House Elf heads mounted on the walls of Hogwarts, Harry would have noticed them by now. From snipsnapsnurr at yahoo.com Sun Sep 11 04:56:23 2005 From: snipsnapsnurr at yahoo.com (snipsnapsnurr) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 04:56:23 -0000 Subject: been gone a while. . . Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139952 i've been moving so i haven't kept up and there are about a million posts that i missed. have we at least agreed that snape is not evil? From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Sep 11 06:06:06 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 06:06:06 -0000 Subject: been gone a while. . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139953 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snipsnapsnurr" wrote: > i've been moving so i haven't kept up and there are about a million > posts that i missed. have we at least agreed that snape is not evil? zgirnius: I'm a fairly new member (joined in July), so I'm not sure how to take this, not being familiar with your sense of humor. If this was intended to be a joke, I thank you, as I have not laughed this hard in weeks. Brilliant! Seriously, though, I think it is likely that this group will still be debating this point long after Book 7 comes out. (Especially as phrased. Not evil? Not on Voldemort's side, we might hope to have definitively revealed if such is the case. But I see Not Evil as remaining in contention under any scenario for Book 7...Plenty of folks seem to feel that canon Snape in Books 1 to 5 is evil no matter whose side he is on, because of his treatment of Harry and Neville and Sirius, for starters. Not to mention his actions in HBP! And, in fact, so evil that even if he is working for the Good Guys, he's irredeemable.) If you want a recommendation of a post to read that I think deserves not to get lost in the thousands of posts since HBP was released, try post number 135892, my personal favorite post-HBP Snape post, in which Severelysigune makes a long, detailed, and cogent Snape is not evil argument. It also has the advantage that it generated lots of responses, so you can see a variety of the existing opinions on the subject. Or, just wait and see. The leaves at the bottom of my teacup are telling me that there are still more Snape posts in our future. From juli17 at aol.com Sun Sep 11 06:49:59 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 02:49:59 EDT Subject: Characters and the revelation model (Was: Re: Depth?) Message-ID: <1a7.3ea441fd.30552d97@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139954 > Betsy Hp: > So James really *is* retiring and shy? Yes, the best way to > build up to a big reveal is to leave blank spaces and allow the > reader to assume. But the author is unwise to lie. And you seem > to be suggesting that JKR lied. That we should ignore everything > that occured during the pensieve flashback. That seems...wasteful > to me. If it's all untrue, why write it to begin with? Nora wrote: Not lying. Complicating. We keep open the idea that the Pensieve scene is a snapshot of one aspect of character, one point in time-- but we are very wary of the assumption that we're going to extrapolate that to cover all situations. You seem very comfortable using one scene as the baseline for all formulations of character, and linking up the similarities smoothly. In situations with such little information, what you get depends on how you read--you want similarities, you get them; you want differences, you get them too. Julie says: Actually, it's not only one scene. We also have Sirius and Lupin's admission of culpability in that scene, McGonagall's recall of James and Sirius as first class troublemakers, and Snape's assignment of files containing cards outlining various misdeeds of Sirius and James throughout their school years (which appear to be quite numerous, if generally of the petty variety). There are probably some additional moments I missed. Clearly James and Sirius were the Fred and George of their time. That evidence taken as a whole gives us a fair amount of reliable and consistent information, and provides a strong baseline on which to formulate the youthful characters of James and Sirius. No leaps of logic or embellishments of canon required :-) The actual information we are missing isn't whether James was arrogant and a bit of a bully as a teenager, but what happened to temper those traits--not erase them, but temper them--into more positive manifestations (like self-confidence in place of arrogance). I think Becky is correct that the Prank probably served as a wake-up call, and the normal progression of maturity (along with Lily's influence) solidified James' adult character. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Sep 11 06:53:25 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 06:53:25 -0000 Subject: Dealing with Dementors: Harry v Snape, Love v Happy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139955 > vmonte: > Kemper, do you happen to know what page (in the HBP book) this scene > is in? I cannot find it. Do we know that it is an entirely new spell > or that Harry just disagrees with Snape's theory/method regarding the > spell? I honestly don't remember. zgirnius: Hi Vivian, the quote is in Chapter 21 (p. 448 in the US edition). "...Ron was now struggling with a viciously difficult essay for Snape that Harry and Hermione had already completed. Harry fully expected to receive low marks for it, because he had disagreed with Snape on the best way to tackle dementors,..." vmonte: > I would venture a guess that Harry probably has more experience in > using this spell than Snape does. In what capacity would Snape have > used this spell, not including sending messages? > Nothing really compares to actual practical experience, IMO. zgirnius: >From the quote above we really have no idea how Snape and Harry disagree. It could be (as Kemper suggests) that Snape offers a completely different approach from the Patronus Charm, be it a novel spell of his own invention, or some sort of non-spell magical technique (Occlumency, denying them memories to feed on? anti-Dementor spray? pure speculation on our part). Or, it could be a disagreement about the Patronus Charm itself-how to most effectively cast it, perhaps. (Maybe you are right that Snape lacks truly happy loving, etc. memories, but Snape can cast a Patronus with something other than a happy memory...) Regarding your remark about practical experience, we really do not know whether or not Snape has any. We know that the Dementors have apparently allied themselves with Voldemort. Does this mean simply that they no longer work at Azkaban, and are just doing whatever they like? Or, is there some plan or plans in motion? If so, is there any coordination between Death Eaters and Dementors? Assuming Dementors are not models of reason and self-control, how would hypothetical Death Eaters protect themselves while working with Dementors? Snape might have had experience with them in the course of his Death Eater duties, or he might have spoken with people who had such experiences. Finally, as Kemper points out in his post (thanks for PoA quote, Kemper!, I never noticed the plural there...) Lupin says there are "defenses". Harry has only tried one. If there are indeed other known defenses to be found in books on DADA with which Lupin is familiar, presumably those defenses have been tried and found to be usable by other wizards. Even if Snape lacks personal experience with Dementors, it is entirely reasonable, even desirable, for him to teach these other approaches. Giving Harry a poor grade on his essay would be entirely justified if Harry failed to make a reasonable argument explaining why his preferred method is superior. (Something more than just saying, Expecto Patronum works for me. Indicating he knows some of the pros and cons of the different possible approaches. Since the point of writing a theory essay is of course to demonstrate that one has learned and can understand, the theory.) Of course, Harry may have done this and still expects a bad grade. Since we are now way into the subject of Snape and Patronuses...I seem to recall reading about an interview in which JKR was asked what Snape's Patronus is, and that she answered it would give too much away for her to say. I wonder...any connection to our thoughts here? (And, did I just imagine this?) From juli17 at aol.com Sun Sep 11 07:20:44 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 03:20:44 EDT Subject: Hard time (was Re: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139956 > Pippin: > There is no canon that Dumbledore intended Draco to go without > punishment because he didn't want him to be killed, any more than > Harry intended that Wormtail not be punished when he refused to > allow Sirius and Lupin to murder him. Pheonixgod2000: But the difference is that Harry says he wants to keep wormtail alive to make sure Sirius gets his name cleared. OTOH we have Dumbledore shielding snape for more than a decade despite Snape having commited crimes that would have gottem him life in Azkaban, basically getting away with accessory to murder in the very least and probably worst crimes. Based on that I think there is every indication that Draco isn't going to face hard time if he goes away with DD. Julie says: I actually see no indication that Draco wouldn't be punished. The situation never progresses far enough for us to know what action DD would have taken with Draco. The only thing he was trying to accomplish at that moment was keeping Draco from actually committing murder. And I don't think Snape's situation is a good analogy. Or, maybe it is. Punishment, penance, or whatever, can be achieved by other means than prison or (in the case of the WW) being soul-sucked by Dementors. DD shielded Snape for 16 years, but Snape had to do some things in return (and we may not yet know the full extent). He taught at Hogwarts under DD, and not in the position he would have preferred, rather than going into hiding (something DD surely could have arranged if he'd wanted). He turned spy for DD at great personal peril, he seems to have spent the last few years protecting Harry, a boy he pretty much despises, and (if he should prove to be DD'sMan!Snape) killed the only man who truly cared about him to further the greater good. Chances are very, very high that he will give his life to complete DD's "plan" (using that word very loosely, meaning doing whatever it takes to keep Harry alive so he can defeat Voldemort). If this does come to pass, it will mean for 16-17 years Snape lived a life that was no longer his own, one basically in service to DD, and then gave up his life to that service. To me that could certainly be one definition of "hard time." Even if he did it all willingly. It may not be the kind of justice we're used to, but it seems to serve well for the WW. And I suspect Draco may find that same type of justice awaits him before it is all over. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Sun Sep 11 08:30:08 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 08:30:08 -0000 Subject: Ginny's life debt (was Re: Depth? Things to take on their face value) In-Reply-To: <005601c5b5f3$3a904160$23c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139957 > > CathyD: > According to JKR, Ginny doesn't owe Harry her life. There is no life debt in place there as there is with Harry and Wormtail. > > > "MA: Does she [Ginny] have a life debt to Harry from book two? > JKR: No, not really. Wormtail is different. You know, part of me would just love to explain the whole thing to you, plot of book seven, you know, I honestly would." Finwitch: Yes, well - - there is, of course, a difference between a moral and a magical life-debt. When it comes to the moral one, well... they're more questionable. I don't expect a baby to be in any way indebted to the breastfeeding mother so the baby doesn't starve to death... but I cannot say where I draw the line. However, for this magical life-debt, I see a difference. Ginny - was 11-12 at the time, younger than Harry, had idolised Harry all her life - and, she was not of age. (Although Molly&Arthur&al. probably do recognise a moral debt of gratitude). Ginny's NOT, however, in a magical life-debt. Year later, Harry saves Peter Pettigrew. This person is an adult, older than Harry, someone who betrayed Harry's parents so they died... this means magical life-debt. However, much like with Harry saving Ginny, there's no magical life-debt to Sirius saving Ron from werewolf!Lupin. Then, fourth year-- do we have any life-debts? Didn't Harry save Cedric's life with that enormous spider? Did his warning about the dragons save Cedric? And er - Cedric was *certainly* at least 17, of age that is. Unfortunately, he died soon afterwards. 5th year: Harry's warning saves Arthur Weasley. Dumbledore saves Umbridge. Some debts may occur during the big fight in the Ministry... 6th: Harry saves Ron with the bezoar... and later with that Felix Felicis both Ron&Hermione... I think it's possible that there IS a magical life-debt involved now. It is my belief that magical life-debt requires, aside from a life being saved - that the one saved is an adult witch or wizard... Finwitch From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sun Sep 11 09:04:34 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 09:04:34 -0000 Subject: Ginny's life debt (was Re: Depth? Things to take on their face value) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139958 > > Finwitch: > It is my belief that magical life-debt requires, aside from a life > being saved - that the one saved is an adult witch or wizard... > > Finwitch Hickengruendler: When exactly was the prank infamous again? It was in James' sixth year, right? Therefore it depends when it was in the year. At the very least your theory is still possible. However, my own guess is, that the life debt is only important, when the saviour and the one being saved are enemies. Ginny is loyal to Harry anyway, as is Arthur. They would try everything to help him with or without a life-debt. It doesn't make a difference. Peter however, is an enemie. As is Snape from James. Maybe they are now morally obliged to help their saviours. (However, we didn't see much of this from Peter in the graveyard scene. I think it's possible that the life debt is only metaphorical and not a magical spell. Though I'm far from being sure, after all, "Mother's love" is metaphorical and a spell in the Potterverse. If my theory is true, that the saviour and the one being saved must be enemies, than I think there are are two or maybe three pairings that are bonded through a life debt, that have any importance to Canon: Harry and Peter, James and Snape and maybe, if a Muggle can be in a life debt as well, Harry and Dudley. From rytal at yahoo.co.uk Sun Sep 11 11:20:36 2005 From: rytal at yahoo.co.uk (Auria) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:20:36 -0000 Subject: Clue on timing of Felix felicis potion Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139959 Something unexplained in HBP I think may be significant - see what you think. In the chapter 'Sectum sempra', Harry reads in his potions book that Felix felicis takes 6 months to make. However Horace Slughorn was persuaded to join Hogwarts during July, just before Harry's birthday celeb at The Burrow, and Slughorn first presented the Felix felicis potion to Harry's class near to the start of term (probably around Sept/Oct I would guess) - it was definetely before Slughorn's Christmas party anyway. So that means the Felix felicis potion could not have been made by Slughorn within this time, as it is less than a 6 month period. This leads to a couple of possible conclusions: 1. Maybe the Felix felicis was already being brewed by someone else at Hogwarts for another purpose. Perhaps (and this is pure guess on my part) it was Dumbledore, who may have been using it during his hunt for the horcruxes? 2. The potion could have been prepared by Snape. Again guess work, but he could have started brewing for either his own use or again someone else's, exactly who and why depending if you believe the ESE or ESG theories on Snape. Whatever the reason, I feel this inconsistency in timing for brewing the potion could be a deliberate clue by JK Rowling. Something seemingly insignificant, and just 'dropped' into the text, but turns out to mean a lot. anyone have any comments? Auria From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Sun Sep 11 11:50:28 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:50:28 -0000 Subject: Thin air/Choices Was re:sex/VanishingCabinet/SoulsEtc/Badger/Ch.2/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139960 >Saraquel originally wrote: ><< One thing that has always puzzled me about the Potterverse, is >the apparent ease with which objects can be magicked out of thin >air. From chairs and inanimate objects (many examples, DD in >Harry's hearing) to organic things like food (Sandwiches in CoS) >right up to living birds (Hermione in HBP). >> >Catlady responded: >Many of those things could real objects transported from another >place by magic rather than conjured objects created ex nihilo by >magic. The chairs and squashy purple sleeping bags would have been >in storerooms, the food in the kitchen (already prepared and put on >the plate by House Elves). I dunno if I can argue that Hermione's >birds were transported from another place... Saraquel now: This made me smile. Either we have a sort permanent wizard junk shop, resembling the dumping ground room of requirement in my fancy, which provides instant loans for the needy wizard. Raining ? need an umbrella, just stick out your wand. Do you think you have to pay in advance ? 5 knuts an item, and a fine of 1 sickle if not returned in 24hours. Or worse, the nearest like object responds to the call. So you could just be sitting down to dinner, with your fork half way to your mouth, when someone two houses down can't be bothered to get up to fetch a fork so magically grabs yours. Most disturbing! I don't know what a flock of canaries would feel like if they were halfway through migrating for the winter and had already made a few thousand Kms, only to find themselves transported back to base. It could wreak havoc with their breeding cycle. I remember thinking that wizard cooking was really rather interesting when Molly poured sauce from the tip of her wand straight into the pan. Something tells me JKR is doing a bit of wishful thinking there. >Catlady wrote in reply to Aberforth's Goat: >So: Harry's choices *reveal* something--they peel the layers off the >onion--they show us the person he actually is. His true identity, >his soul, his platonic essence. Saraquel: Or is it that we have the potential to be anything, and that through our choices we create a personality and base for what we are. More soul thoughts (I did post more about the soul, so after you expressed interest in the post I'm replying to, I hope you have enjoyed reading them.) they just keep coming :-) If we define memories, mind, emotions etc as not being the soul, then we end up with the soul=container for aforesaid things, which I find highly dissatisfactory. So now I'm wondering if the soul is a completely non-physical thing that is just love, out of which these things are fashioned. Paralleling my thoughts on magical power being a force in the `ether' which witches/wizards use to fashion objects. If that's accurate, then our whole personality and life, is one long choice. Saraquel Who is still working on the prophecy. From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Sun Sep 11 12:00:30 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 12:00:30 -0000 Subject: Clue on timing of Felix felicis potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139961 Auria wrote: > Felix felicis takes 6 months to make. However Horace Slughorn was > persuaded to join Hogwarts during July, just before Harry's birthday > celeb at The Burrow, and Slughorn first presented the Felix felicis > potion to Harry's class near to the start of term So that >means the Felix felicis potion could not have been made by Slughorn >within this time, as it is less than a 6 month period. > > This leads to a couple of possible conclusions: > 1. Maybe the Felix felicis was already being brewed by someone else > at Hogwarts for another purpose. Perhaps Dumbledore, Snape. Saraquel: Hi Auria, I disagree, I always thought that Slughorn would have kept some brewing as part of his defence system whilst lying low, in case of emergencies. He certainly had some Dragon's Blood hanging around. Mark my words, that dusty dragon's blookd will come into its own in Book 7. Maybe we should speculate on the 12 uses it could be put to! Saraquel From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Sep 11 12:30:50 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 05:30:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's decisions (was:Re: Depth? Things to take on their face value...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050911123050.30697.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139962 > Sirius was disappointed that Harry was not more like James; has any > one ever considered that Harry was disappointed that Sirius was not > more like him? > > Pippin Well, there's an indication of that when Dumbledore tells Harry that Voldemort knew that he regarded Sirius as "an older brother". Since Sirius was approximately (give or take a few months) the same age as Harry's dead father should tell us something about Harry's perception. Harry dealt with it by reining in his own behaviour, not talking about what worried him because he didn't want Sirius to come out of hiding, and also assuming the role of the parent figure by urging Sirius not to take risks. The sad truth is that by the time Sirius entered Harry's life, Harry was no longer in need of that kind of present-buying, good-time godfather but rather a mentor who could teach and guide him. Sirius could not be present for that kind of thing and demonstrated over and over that he didn't have the temperament for it. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Sep 11 14:23:50 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 14:23:50 -0000 Subject: SICK ATTRACTION In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139968 >Vivian wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139906 : >Also, it's interesting that Zabini's mother is a sexual predator. She's been married "7" times and each man dies mysteriously. (Black widow spider comes to mind.) I think this kid is a sexual predator, too. >> CatLady responded: >I think Blaise's mother is a financial predator rather than a sexual predator, because sex is her method but cruel sexual gratification is not her goal; inheriting the rich wizards' fortunes is her goal. >Which kid is a sexual predator, Blaise? Did he do anything in HBP except stand around looking pretty and saying racist remarks? vmonte: I've been wrestling with whether or not to put up this theory. I believe that the next book is going to touch on the darkest side of attraction. Unfortunately, part of this theory is based on a gut feeling, which I admit might be wrong. I realize that I may be torn to shreds by certain posters on this list but here it goes... I've always been uncomfortable with Draco's interactions with Hermione. I realize that he is a racist, but I've always had a feeling that there was more to it. I think that part of the reason why Draco hates Hermione so much is because despite the fact that she is a "mudblood" he is attracted to her. I think that Zabini has this kind of suppressed attraction to Ginny. "A lot of boys like [Ginny Weasley]," said Pansy, watching Malfoy out of the corner of her eyes for his reaction. "Even you think she's good-looking, don't you, Blaise, and we all know how hard you are to please!" "I wouldn't touch a filthy little blood traitor like her whatever she looked like," said Zabini coldly, and Pansy looked pleased. Malfoy sank back across her lap and allowed her to resume the stroking of his hair. (p150, The Slug Club) This next section is a conversation between Draco and Snape: "It is an act that is crucial to success, Draco!" said Snape. "Where do you think I would have been all these years, if I had not known how to act? Now listen to me! You are being incautious, wandering around at night, getting yourself caught, and if you are placing your reliance in assistants like Crabbe and Goyle?" "They're not the only ones, I've got other people on my side, better people!" (P324, The Unbreakable Vow) I think that Draco has enlisted the help of Zabini and Mclaggen: "So, Zabini," said Malfoy, "what did Slughorn want?" "Just trying to make up to well-connected people," said Zabini, who was still glowering at Goyle. "Not that he managed to find many." This information did not seem to please Malfoy. "Who else had he invited?" he demanded. "Mclaggen from Gryffindor," said Zabini. "Oh yeah, his uncle's big in the Ministry," said Malfoy. (P149,150) (I can almost hear the wheels turning in Malfoy's head.) Zabini and Draco suppress their attractions, but Mclaggen does not. He's got his hands all over Hermione at Slughorn's party, perhaps trying to become "Keeper" in more ways than one. I wonder if Hermione will realize something about Snape when she figures out what Zabini, Draco, and Mclaggen are all about. I keep thinking about the scene where Harry tells Hermione and Ron about the prophecy and Hermione gets punched in the face with the telescope(?). I wonder if something will be made clear to Hermione that will be like a jolt, a punch in the face. I also want to comment on the fact that Hermione has not actually heard the prophecy, just Harry and Dumbledore's interpretation of it. Hermione is very good at figuring things out. She was able to get past Snape's potions test in PS because it was a logic test, and she was able to figure out that Lupin was a werewolf from Snape's homework essay (the same essay Snape took in 5th year during "Snape's Worst Memory." I just want to add a side note that Snape must have also known what Lupin was before the prank). Maybe she will recognize Snape's style in it? "The Dark Lord"... Anyway, I think that Snape's interest in Lily may have been very dark. Slughorn: "When you have seen as much of life as I have, you will not underestimate the power of obsessive love " (The Half-Blood Prince, Scholastic, page 186). Vivian From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Sep 11 14:30:38 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 14:30:38 -0000 Subject: Thin air/Choices Was re:sex/VanishingCabinet/SoulsEtc/Badger/Ch.2/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139969 Saraquel: *(snip)* > Raining ? need > an umbrella, just stick out your wand. Do you think you have to pay > in advance ? 5 knuts an item, and a fine of 1 sickle if not returned > in 24hours. Or worse, the nearest like object responds to the call... *(snip)* Ceridwen: I've been going the other way, that the conjuring of objects (not gravy, unfortunately!) is merely utilizing existant air molecules and transfiguring them into whatever is needed at the time. A limited spell, and when the thing is no longer needed (and maintained), it evaporates back into air molecules. On gravy (sauce), and other things that must remain, I think they're transported somehow, made earlier, and are the property of whoever summons them. Molly could have a store of sauce in her pantry that she made all in one day and set aside for use. Or, that she made earlier, expecting to play hostess to her guests. Saraquel: > Or is it that we have the potential to be anything, and that through > our choices we create a personality and base for what we are. *(snip)* I think it's that. That we actually create ourselves through the choices we make. Our own fear of ridicule or physical harm can stunt our growth through making safe choices, or we can kill ourselves by making risky choices. But with each choice, we add another block to the pyramid of our self, altering the landscape we show other people. It's another way to say we either choose what is easy or what is right. And by adding each choice, we continually form our personalities. And, following the discussion, personality seems to be some facet of the soul. If you think of a soul as a gemstone with many facets in it, instead of a container, it might resonate more. Since, a facet is cut into a stone, as choices build the ediface of the self. Voldemort's apparent two-dimensional state can be a tip-off to what happens to a diminished, or chipped, soul. Ceridwen. From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Sep 11 15:02:06 2005 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 11 Sep 2005 15:02:06 -0000 Subject: Reminder - Weekly Chat Message-ID: <1126450926.112.817.m30@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139970 We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. Weekly Chat Date: Sunday, September 11, 2005 Time: 11:00AM 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 nrenka at yahoo.com Sun Sep 11 15:35:19 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:35:19 -0000 Subject: Thin air/Choices Was re:sex/VanishingCabinet/SoulsEtc/Badger/Ch.2/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139971 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "saraquel_omphale" wrote: >> Catlady wrote in reply to Aberforth's Goat: >> So: Harry's choices *reveal* something--they peel the layers off >> the onion--they show us the person he actually is. His true >> identity, his soul, his platonic essence. > > Saraquel: > Or is it that we have the potential to be anything, and that > through our choices we create a personality and base for what we > are. In the Potterverse, I don't think so. That's a very existentialist perspective, and would be demonstrated through a statement such as our choices making us who we are. But once you say 'show' instead of 'make' (as Dumbledore does), the emphasis is put onto illustration of qualities, carrying out actions which correspond to qualities--not making those qualities in oneself. Essentialism. One gets the impression that Rowling thinks of her characters with very well-defined character, strong personality traits and qualities at the bottom which their actions stem from. That's not to say that change is impossible--but she clearly has a strong idea of innate abilities, particularly illustrated if you look at her comments on Neville as opposed to Harry. -Nora is notably nitpicky about getting that quote right From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Sep 11 15:48:46 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:48:46 -0000 Subject: Clue on timing of Felix felicis potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139972 "Auria" wrote: > Felix felicis potion could not > have been made by Slughorn > within this time, as it is less > than a 6 month period. There is no reason Slughorn had to brew Felix felicis at Hogwarts, he could have made it while he was hiding from the Death Eaters and taken it with him. In fact, it would be surprising if a master potions maker like Slughorn didn't make sure he always had a supply of such a useful potion available in these dangerous times just in case of emergency. Eggplant From sainthellsing at yahoo.com Sun Sep 11 04:09:42 2005 From: sainthellsing at yahoo.com (sainthellsing) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 04:09:42 -0000 Subject: MaddMorgan's Loyalty & Trust Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139973 Dumbledore's trust in Severus Snape does, indeed, seem absolute, and I would hesitate to doubt his wise judgement. Though much of what we've learned about Snape is unsavory, and his personality more than a little caustic, in his actions to protect Harry he has been steadfast. "Praesto et persto" - I stand, and I stand firm. In his admission that he is perfectly capable of making mistakes, Dumbledore again shows his wisdom. Only fools, tyrants, and politicians believe themselves to be infallible. But that Dumbledore CAN make mistakes doesn't mean he HAS. And actions which seem to him, in retrospect, to have led him in the wrong direction may yet prove to arrive at the very place he desired. Sainthellsing. From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Sun Sep 11 16:07:14 2005 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:07:14 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?DWG_=96_TR;_LV_=96_RAB;_LV_-_DM?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139974 Dark Wizard Grindelwald and Tom Riddle; Lord Voldemort and Regulus Black; Lord Voldemort and Draco Malfoy =(DWG ? TR // LV ? RAB // LV - DM) (follows on from an earlier discussion- Re: Grindelwald taught Tom about making Horcruxes) -aussie- I proposed that Grindlewald (can I call him DWG for Dark Wizard Grindlewald from now on?) , so DWG taught TR (Tom Riddle) of Horcrux making in 1942-45 because it could show a pattern. Not only with a second reason why Dark Wizard LV would insist Draco Malfoy AKs DD (thus tearing his soul), but also why RAB would know about LV's Horcrux. What turned Regulus away from LV? He may have refused to follow a kill order. There was a distinct reason why DWG would have wanted, even encouraged, young Tom to split his soul by murdering his muggle father. It is the same reason, IMO why LV wanted to get Draco to commit the murder of DD, and all the DEs knew no-one else was to AK DD. LV may have been given RAB a different target. Just as LV killed his family member, RAB's refused to kill Sirius, his brother. JKR interview July 16 2005: "That doesn't necessarily show that Voldemort killed him, personally, but Sirius himself suspected that Regulus got in a little too deep. Like Draco. He was attracted to it, but the reality of what it meant was way too much to handle." So JKR mentioned Regulus and Draco to fuel this theory. But it still doesn't explain how RAB knew of that hidden Horcrux. Consider the legacy of a Dark Wizard to a young and willing apprentice. We have already seen how others bodies may be taken over (as with Quirrel and the diary's attempt on Ginny.) By getting a Hogwarts student, an under aged wizard, to tear his sole in a murder, that could be ... could be ... ok, help me out here guys - Why would a Dark Wizard need young blood to spill blood? LV needed blood to come back in the graveyard scene. Is ther a patern with Tom, Regulus and Draco? -aussie- From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Sep 11 16:41:03 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:41:03 -0000 Subject: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort (was: Re: Draco's culpability...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139976 > > Betsy Hp: > Because it doesn't fit neatly into the "Draco is a coldhearted, > murdering little bastard" theory. At all. JKR could easily have > had Draco creating a magical bomb; instead she has him restoring a > piece of furniture. It backs up, IMO, Dumbledore's contention that > Draco is not a killer. A killer would have worked on something that > kills. Draco worked on opening a door. a_svirn: There are so many assumptions that don't stand to the scrutiny in this so very small passage. For starters why doesn't it fit this theory? Draco opens the door to let the bunch of terrorists and a rabid werewolf to the school full of children and he does it specifically so that the headmaster of the said school would be killed. (Which he duly was.) I would've thought that your average cold-hearted bastard would be an ideal candidate for the job. Second, to call the vanishing cabinet a "piece of furniture" is lake calling a magic wand "a piece of wood". Not a false statement in itself, but entirely off the point. Third, Draco IS working on "something that kills". I thought we were in the agreement that the restoration of the vanishing cabinet is a vital part of the assassination plot, and the end of such a plot is assassination. And finally, what is it about "Draco is a coldhearted, murdering little bastard" theory? Whose theory is that? Certainly, not mine. You are just setting up a straw-man and then demolish it to flinders to your satisfaction. > Betsy Hp: > They belong in the same sentence as much as "killer" and "furniture > restorer" belong in the same sentence. a_svirn: Actually a furniture restorer can be a killer in his or her spare time. Why not? > > Betsy Hp: > I've touched on this in other posts. I think I'm most specific in > message #137075 where I say: > > "There is powerful imagery invoked in the three times Dumbledore > gives Draco the time to act and then tells him he is not a killer. > I'm not sure if JKR had this particular idea in mind while she was > writing, but once I noticed the pattern of three I immediately > thought of Peter who three times denies Christ before the > Crucifixion and then, after the Resurrection, is able to redeem > himself when Christ asks Peter three times if he loves him. (I > believe this takes place in the book of John in the Bible.) a_svirn: Do you mean to say that Draco loves Dumbledore? He seems to hide it well. And Peter was a disciple of Christ who denied him. Hardly applicable to Draco's situation. Betsy Hp: >But even > if she didn't, there's a certain power within the number three. a_svirn: Yeah, three's a charm. From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Sep 11 16:44:44 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:44:44 -0000 Subject: Dealing with Dementors: Harry v Snape, Love v Happy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139978 zgirnius wrote: If there are indeed other known defenses to be found in books on DADA with which Lupin is familiar, presumably those defenses have been tried and found to be usable by other wizards. Even if Snape lacks personal experience with Dementors, it is entirely reasonable, even desirable, for him to teach these other approaches. Giving Harry a poor grade on his essay would be entirely justified if Harry failed to make a reasonable argument explaining why his preferred method is superior. (Something more than just saying, Expecto Patronum works for me. Indicating he knows some of the pros and cons of the different possible approaches. Since the point of writing a theory essay is of course to demonstrate that one has learned and can understand, the theory.) Of course, Harry may have done this and still expects a bad grade. Since we are now way into the subject of Snape and Patronuses...I seem to recall reading about an interview in which JKR was asked what Snape's Patronus is, and that she answered it would give too much away for her to say. I wonder...any connection to our thoughts here? (And, did I just imagine this?) vmonte: Hi zgirnius. There is just no way to know if Snape and Harry are clashing on which spell to use or whether they are talking about the same patronus spell but have different theories/ideas on the application. The animosity works both ways IMO. I don't think that Snape would consider anything Harry said if it was different than what he believed. Remember, this is a talent that Harry has that he hasn't gotten from Voldemort or stolen from HBP. Isn't it possible that Harry knows more about this spell than they do? If there are different ways to go after Dementors I'm sure they will be explored in the last Harry Potter book. Ernie: I wonder if you can let us know what form will Professor Snape's Boggart and Patronus take? I am very curious. JK Rowling replies -> Well, I'm not going to tell you Ernie, but that's because it would give so much away. I wonder whether Ernie is your real name? (It was my grandfather's). http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm Emma: What one spell would you like to bring to life and why? JK: Ooh, there are so many, aren't there? So many. Erm, I think for me there ... the outstanding spell is 'Expecto Patronum', and you know what that does don't you? It creates the Patronus, it creates a kind of spirit guardian in a way. And that's partly because of what it does. It's the protector, and you could protect yourself and other people that you cared about with a Patronus, but it's also because it's such a beautiful spell. you know, the image of the silver Patronus emerging from a wand. I really like that. http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-itv-coad.htm Vivian From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 11 16:47:30 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:47:30 -0000 Subject: Hard time for Snape?(was Re: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139979 > Julie says: > And I don't think Snape's situation is a good analogy. Or, maybe > it is. Punishment, penance, or whatever, can be achieved by other > means than prison or (in the case of the WW) being soul-sucked > by Dementors. DD shielded Snape for 16 years, but Snape had to > do some things in return (and we may not yet know the full extent). > He taught at Hogwarts under DD, and not in the position he would > have preferred, rather than going into hiding (something DD surely > could have arranged if he'd wanted). He turned spy for DD at great > personal peril, he seems to have spent the last few years protecting > Harry, a boy he pretty much despises, and (if he should prove to > be DD'sMan!Snape) killed the only man who truly cared about him > to further the greater good. Chances are very, very high that he will > give his life to complete DD's "plan" (using that word very loosely, > meaning doing whatever it takes to keep Harry alive so he can defeat > Voldemort). Alla: Oh, I don't know about that, Julie. Are you saying that Snape would have preferred to spend these fourteen years ( or thirteen or twelve, I am fuzzy on timeline today) prior to Voldemort's return in Azkaban instead of in Hogwarts? I mean, let's face it, instead of going to jail as a member of terrorist organization, he got a nice job as Hogwarts professor under the protection of most powerful wizard of all time. If I were Snape, I would be very grateful, that I escaped Azkaban, I think Snape had it VERY good all those years before Voldemort returned. True, after Voldemort returned he may have been forced to do some unpleasant things, but before,as Marianne said ( I think) dear Severus got a himself a very nice deal, IMO. He did not teach in the position he preferred? It is still much better, IMO, to have a paying job than sitting in Azkaban in close proximity to dementors. He was protecting Harry? Well, IMO, it is arguable, but again, even if it is so, he was doing what teacher is required to do - namely protect the safety of his students. JMO, Alla From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Sep 11 16:47:38 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:47:38 -0000 Subject: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort (was: Re: Draco's culpability...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139980 > Alla: > > Sure, I can go with that scene being another example of vicarious > retribution ( Alla waves at Guinger, but unfortunately does not have > a link to that great post of hers, where she developed the concept) > > > But no, I don't think that was enough. > > a_svirn: Do you mean to say that Draco suffered for his father's and his aunt's sins? Because that's what "vicarious retribution" means. Somehow I don't see JKR taking this route. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 11 16:52:00 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:52:00 -0000 Subject: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort (was: Re: Draco's culpability...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139981 > > Alla: > > > > Sure, I can go with that scene being another example of vicarious > > retribution > a_svirn: > > Do you mean to say that Draco suffered for his father's and his aunt's > sins? Because that's what "vicarious retribution" means. Somehow I > don't see JKR taking this route. Alla: No, not at all. I meant to say that this scene could be example of indirect punishment for Draco, if JKR indeed does not want to punish Draco directly, but wanted to show the reader that he indeed would be punished somehow. And yes, I know that this is not exactly the right meaning of "vicarious retribution" Alla From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Sep 11 16:53:01 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:53:01 -0000 Subject: Thin air/Choices Was re:sex/VanishingCabinet/SoulsEtc/Badger/Ch.2/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139982 Nora: > In the Potterverse, I don't think so. That's a > very existentialist perspective, and would be > demonstrated through a statement such as our choices > making us who we are. But once you say 'show' instead > of 'make' (as Dumbledore does), the emphasis is put > onto illustration of qualities, carrying out actions > which correspond to qualities--not making those > qualities in oneself. Essentialism. > > One gets the impression that Rowling thinks of her > characters with very well-defined character, strong > personality traits and qualities at the bottom which > their actions stem from. That's not to say that change > is impossible--but she clearly has a strong idea of > innate abilities, particularly illustrated if you > look at her comments on Neville as opposed to Harry. houyhnhnm: I think you are right about the quote from CoS. And the behavior of the characters seldom deviates from the pattern that has been established for them. The following passage has me still thinking of Dumbledore as something of an existentialist, though. ----------------------------------------------- (HBP, AE, p. 510) "If Voldemort had never heard of the prophecy, would it have been fulfilled? Would it have meant anything? Of course not. Do you think every prophecy in the Hall of Prophecy has been fulfilled?" "But," said Harry, bewildered, "but last year, you said one of us would have to kill the other--" "Harry, Harry, only because Voldemort made a grave error and acted on Professor Trelawney's words! If Voldemort had never murdered your father, would he have imparted in you a furious desire for revenge? Of course not. If he had not forced your mother to die for you, would he have given you a magical protection he could not penetrate? Of course not, Harry! Don't you see? Voldemort himself created his own worst enemy...." "But--" "It is essential that you understand this!" said Dumbledore, standing up and striding about the room, his glittering [!! ] robes swooshing in his wake; Harry had never seen him so agitated. ----------------------------------------------- It makes me think of the following words of Kierkegaard: "He who fights the future has a dangerous enemy. The future is not; it borrows its strength from the man himself, and when it has tricked him out of this, then it appears outside of him as the enemy he must meet." Clearly Voldemort created his future by chosing to act on the prophecy as he did. I guess the question is: Did Voldemort have a choice WRT his choice or was he predestined to chose to act the way he did. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Sep 11 17:01:01 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:01:01 -0000 Subject: sex/VanishingCabinet/SoulsEtc/Badger/Ch.2/ThinAir/Choices/Stag/deadHouseElves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139983 Catlady: > Did JKR say that about 'our choices determine who we are' in an > interview? As Cathy Drolet has posted, Dumbledore said 'show', not > 'determine', as in the following ancient and nearly perfect post: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/23598 Aberforth's goat: > Not so fast! The CoS passage actually has some of the most > "Calvinistic" passages in the canon. In fact, it was that passage > that got me thinking about this. So: Harry's > choices *reveal* something--they peel the layers off the > onion--they show us the person he actually is. His true identity, his > soul, his platonic essence. And that person is, fundamentally, a > Gryffindor. He may not even have known it, but there's a white hat in > his soul and when it comes to a crisis, he'll wear it. Jen: I'm not trying to discount the essence of Calvinism in the story, the fact that JKR said the sorting hat is never wrong probably gives even more credit to the idea: At the core, each person by age 11 is a preponderance of certain traits, revealing an identity most closely matching one of the four founder's houses. If JKR's going with a *pure* Calvinist view, the actions of her characters mean nothing as she's already pre-ordained their core essence by age 11. Peter is a Gryffindor at heart and thus will be revealed as a Gryffindor in the end. His failure of will and indirect destruction of the Potter family means nothing because he is predestined to be a white hat in the end. Draco lowering his wand and Snape choosing to be on Dumbledore's side for even awhile (if he did indeed choose that) mean nothing becuase both are fated to be revealed as evil, along with most of the other Slytherins in the end. Harry is revealed as a Gryffindor early on and continues to make the choice to be brave-at-heart and good, like his mom, dad, & Dumbledore. Regulus may have chosen to destroy the Horcrux in an act of bravery, but this did not change his pre-destined course as a DE and evil at his core. She muddies the Calvinistic waters though, in GOF: "You place too much importance, and you always have done, on the so-called purity of blood! You fail to recognize that it matters not what someone is born, but what they grow to be! Your dementor has just destroyed the last remaining member of a pure-blood family as old as any--and see what that man chose to make of his life!" (chap. 36, p. 708, Scholastic). But JKR's choosing to hinge a huge theme of her story on the idea that blood content means nothing for who a person chooses to become. A Muggleborn can be the best witch of her age just as a pure-blood can act like Barty Crouch, Jr. This also means a pure-blood like Sirius can choose to go against his family's pure-blood doctrine, and a half- blood like Riddle can choose to become the darkest wizard ever known. I'm not sure she can have it both ways without having losing one of her major themes in the end. Jen From jmrazo at hotmail.com Sun Sep 11 17:26:11 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:26:11 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's decisions (was:Re: Depth? Things to take on their face value...) In-Reply-To: <20050911123050.30697.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139984 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > Harry dealt with it by reining in his own behaviour, not talking > about what worried him because he didn't want Sirius to come out of > hiding, and also assuming the role of the parent figure by urging > Sirius not to take risks. The sad truth is that by the time Sirius > entered Harry's life, Harry was no longer in need of that kind of > present-buying, good-time godfather but rather a mentor who could > teach and guide him. Sirius could not be present for that kind of > thing and demonstrated over and over that he didn't have the > temperament for it. Once again, I think this highlights the inconsistancy in Sirius character in OOTP. He gave harry good advice in GoF and did his best to advise him during the tri-wizard tourney despite the limitations they were both under. Sirius didn't start to devolve until he was kept in at number 12 and even then it was inconsistant. I hope there is a better explanation in book seven about what happens to Sirius because so far canon is really weak. phoenixgod2000, who thinks that if Dumbledore didn't want Sirius help the least he could have done was leave him in the tropics. From sherriola at earthlink.net Sun Sep 11 17:49:36 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 10:49:36 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hard time for Snape?(was Re: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c5b6f9$2e459070$6524f204@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 139985 I mean, let's face it, instead of going to jail as a member of terrorist organization, he got a nice job as Hogwarts professor under the protection of most powerful wizard of all time. I think Snape had it VERY good all those years before Voldemort returned. True, after Voldemort returned he may have been forced to do some unpleasant things, but before,as Marianne said ( I think) dear Severus got a himself a very nice deal, IMO. He did not teach in the position he preferred? It is still much better, IMO, to have a paying job than sitting in Azkaban in close proximity to dementors. He was protecting Harry? Well, IMO, it is arguable, but again, even if it is so, he was doing what teacher is required to do - namely protect the safety of his students. JMO, Alla Sherry now: Thanks, Alla, for reminding me who originally pointed out that dear sevvy didn't have to spend all those years before Voldemort's return fooling Dumbledore. Was it Marry Ann who said that? I wanted to bring that out again. Many Good Snape theorists have said it would be harder for Snape to fool Dumbledore for 16 years, and that he only had to fool Voldemort for a few years. But it is really true, that he only had to fooled Dumbledore once when he returned to him with his supposed remorse, and then only for the two years since Voldemort's return. Not all that difficult for a good spy and someone skilled at occlumency. After all, there wasn't anything going on during those years, no death eaters, no evil wizard. He could sit back, relax, teach and abuse his students with no pressure to appear to be anything but a reformed death eater. the real fun began when Voldemort returned. As for him protecting Harry, the only absolute time I know of is in PS./SS, and Dumbledore tells us it was because of his debt to James. i can't think of anything he's done since to protect Harry directly. I don't count the shrieking shack in POA, because that event is open to interpretation. for me, it's a sign of his obsession with trying to get Sirius and Lupin kissed by the dementors and not much on saving the trio. sherry From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Sep 11 18:14:01 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:14:01 -0000 Subject: Forgiveness ( was:Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139986 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: Phoenixgod: > > > > Dumbledore has no authority to give forgiveness or pass a > > benediction to Draco. > > > > JKR even says in one of her interviews that DD isn't a > > metaphor for jesus and even he admits to his own falibility so I > > think he neatly cuts off his own confessional authority. > > Betsy Hp: > Within the Christian tradition one doesn't need to be Jesus or > infallibal to hear confession or to give a benediction. Far from > it, actually. Any authority Dumbledore has comes from his love for > Draco and his interest in his welfare. Actually, the way I read it > (and others may well disagree since this is getting into my own > belief system) Dumbledore opens the way for Draco to forgive > himself. After all, it's Draco who fears he's a killer. It's Draco > who's suffered the most for the path he's been taken down. It's > Draco who is most in danger, IMO. Dumbledore gives Draco the chance > to choose a different way. Which is well within his rights as > Headmaster of Draco's school, both morally and legally, I think. Geoff: I must with respect disagree with you. If you had said "within some Christian traditions" I would have been satisfied. But the concept of confession and absolution within Western Christianity is only used by the Roman Catholic church and possibly some high Anglican churches. I cannot speak for Orthodox churches though I suspect it may be the case here. If we have done something wrong to another person, we can seek their forgiveness which they can give to us for harming them. But, within the Protestant church, we believe that only by confessing our sins to Christ and seeking his love and forgiveness can we be totally cleared of these wrongdoings and have "the slate wiped clean" in the eyes of God. In the context above, Dumbledore is not forgiving Draco but pointing the way for him to go; Draco needs to choose that way and to follow it genuinely and seek to leave his old ways behind. From manawydan at ntlworld.com Sun Sep 11 18:29:16 2005 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:29:16 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Thin air/Choices References: <1126457602.1832.61033.m30@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <003801c5b6fe$b8befd40$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 139988 houyhnhnm quoted: >"If Voldemort had never heard of the prophecy, would it have been >fulfilled? Would it have meant anything? Of course not. Do you >think every prophecy in the Hall of Prophecy has been fulfilled?" I suspect that had I been Harry, I'd have replied "Yes, Headmaster, I rather thought that that was inherent in the definition of the word prophecy. Otherwise, how is it any different from Stan and Ernie having a pint in the pub before the game on Saturday and Ernie saying "The Cannons will walk it this afternoon"? Even if the Cannons were in the next cubicle and are inspired to greater efforts because they overhear how much confidence their fans have." Have to admit I was a little disappointed by JKR on that one. hwyl Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Sep 11 18:31:29 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:31:29 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_DWG_=96_TR;_LV_=96_RAB;_LV_-_DM?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139989 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hagrid" wrote: > Dark Wizard Grindelwald and Tom Riddle; Lord Voldemort and Regulus > Black; Lord Voldemort and Draco Malfoy =(DWG ? TR // LV ? RAB // LV - > DM) > (follows on from an earlier discussion- Re: Grindelwald taught Tom > about making Horcruxes) > > -aussie- > I proposed that Grindlewald (can I call him DWG for Dark Wizard > Grindlewald from now on?) , so DWG taught TR (Tom Riddle) of Horcrux > making in 1942-45 because it could show a pattern. Not only with a > second reason why Dark Wizard LV would insist Draco Malfoy AKs DD > (thus tearing his soul), but also why RAB would know about LV's > Horcrux. What turned Regulus away from LV? He may have refused to > follow a kill order. Once DWG and young TR Agreed to make a (w)horcrux. But DWG was ESE And so he cried "Redux!" "Just why should I show you a way To meddle in death's affairs? It's my demise I will delay Not yours or his or theirs" "To teach you patterns, I believe Is to court a disaster Merlin forbid that I should live To call you Lord and Master" "For me you, lad, is young TR Not DL or LV I care not that JKR Curtailed my own CV" "And who's this chap, that RAB I honestly dunno I'd like to be than not to be Um.. dixie IMO" a_svirn From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Sep 11 18:37:13 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:37:13 -0000 Subject: Believing Harry is not a Horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139990 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "saraquel_omphale" wrote: Saraquel: > First, I think my post was somewhat ambiguous as to what I was > questioning, for which I apologise. The idea that I was really > interested in was about whether the soul is different to the > mind/intellect/personality/Psyche. (let's use the word psyche here, > although I must admit, I don't know the full implications of that > word.) If, in JKRs world, it is not the psyche, then, what is it? A > container perhaps? What is it's nature/purpose? It is this question > which has puzzled me when thinking about the soul. > If the soul is greater (for want of a better word) than the psyche, > then what is the nature of that greatness, and is there any evidence > in canon that can point to that? For the soul, (in the world of the > books rather than in Christian belief) to be just a container seems > to me to be doing it an even greater disservice than equating it > with the psyche. > When I looked at the evidence, it seemed I could only find canon to > support the Psyche theory. What would really interest me is if > someone could look at it with a different pair of eyes and interpret > what is there in a different way. Geoff: I have suggested that I see the psyche as being the same as the soul - I did point out that etymology of the word shows a link to the Greek word for soul anyway. > >Geoff wrote: > >I believe that our whole being reflects our personality but > >after death, it is our soul which will continue into "the next great > >adventure". > > Saraquel: > From what Luna says to Harry at the end of OotP, and from the > whispering which Harry hears beyond the veil, it would appear that > the mind (originating the words/sounds) and some sort of body > (whispering them) is also in evidence beyond the veil. I do think > that the body is separate, but this topic is covered by me in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139763 > > >Geoff wrote: > >We do not know precisely what form a Horcrux takes. Is it tangible? > >Is it invisible? How do we know that it is there? I have a mental > >vision of it being like a piece of A4 paper which is being torn > >into smaller bits; a silly idea but it is one that has stuck with > >me. As a mathematician myself, I would agree with those who have > >suggested that it doesn't divide itself neatly into fractions of > >the whole. > > Saraquel: > I think we need to distinguish between a horcrux-as-container and > the actual soul fragment. Geoff: I must apologise here for my sloppy English. I really meant the soul in my picture of an A4 sheet of paper and the subdivision of it. I think we are having problems here in dealing with how we visualise soul, mind and spirit - not only in the Wizarding World but in our own real world. How do we look at our soul or our mind? Are the two the same - or is the mind a "subset" of the soul because I believe that we /will/ carry memories and our own idiocyncrasies over into the next life? we are dealing with intangibles here. we cannot point to an X-ray of the brain and say "the soul is here". It cannot be pinpointed. So if we have these trouble in real life, we have got to accept the same boundary parameters in the Wizarding World. Which leaves me still wondering how to keep umpteen million gigabytes of memory and personality in a diary..... From juli17 at aol.com Sun Sep 11 19:42:33 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:42:33 EDT Subject: Hard time for Snape?(was Re: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort) Message-ID: <7a.7b72699f.3055e2a9@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139991 Alla: Oh, I don't know about that, Julie. Are you saying that Snape would have preferred to spend these fourteen years ( or thirteen or twelve, I am fuzzy on timeline today) prior to Voldemort's return in Azkaban instead of in Hogwarts? I mean, let's face it, instead of going to jail as a member of terrorist organization, he got a nice job as Hogwarts professor under the protection of most powerful wizard of all time. If I were Snape, I would be very grateful, that I escaped Azkaban, I think Snape had it VERY good all those years before Voldemort returned. True, after Voldemort returned he may have been forced to do some unpleasant things, but before,as Marianne said ( I think) dear Severus got a himself a very nice deal, IMO. He did not teach in the position he preferred? It is still much better, IMO, to have a paying job than sitting in Azkaban in close proximity to dementors. He was protecting Harry? Well, IMO, it is arguable, but again, even if it is so, he was doing what teacher is required to do - namely protect the safety of his students. Julie: I don't think Snape wanted to spend those years prior to Voldemort's return in Azkaban. But he could have gone into hiding, something DD could have arranged if *DD* wanted to do so. But I also believe the reason DD vouched for Snape is because Snape agreed to help him defeat Voldemort. Part of that deal probably also involved protecting Harry. And Snape teaching at Hogwarts keeps him near DD, so DD can both protect and keep an eye on him, and where Snape can also help protect Hogwarts and strategize with DD once Voldemort returned. I do think Snape was grateful to be saved from Azkaban. And what better way to show gratitude than to serve DD in the above manner? And to put his life on the line while doing so? My point about not getting the position he preferred doesn't negate that gratitude. I was just point out that Snape being at Hogwarts all these years teaching, and later protecting Harry, may not--probably isn't--how he would have chosen to spend his life, before he limited his choices with his own regrettable actions (telling Voldemort about the prophecy). In the end, he did get a nice deal for 12 years, before Harry showed up at Hogwarts and Voldemort returned. But then came the time Snape probably dreaded (but still has willingly faced), the time to pay up. (Another reason why he must have been less than thrilled to see Harry Potter arrive at Hogwarts!) If Snape does turn out to be DD's man, then he's certainly been meeting that obligation. Regarding the issue of protecting Harry, I agree that protecting the students is something a teacher is expected to do. But because it's expected doesn't mean it's going to happen. Lockhart wasn't about to protect students at the cost of his own safety. It's questionable whether several other teachers who've come and gone would do so either, or in some cases (Trelawny, for example) *could* do so. This is one thing I respect about Snape. He has always protected the students under his care from physical danger (his verbal abuse is a separate matter, and I don't respect his use of it, but it's still true that death is a far worse and much more final fate than occasional humiliation). It's why I said once that if I had a child at Hogwarts during Voldemort's reign of terror, other than Dumbledore, I'd want that child to be in Snape's presence if the school's protection was compromised (even McGonagall doesn't seem to be as skilled a wizard as Snape). And even after what we saw in HBP (or partly because of what we saw--e.g. Snape placed Hermoine and Ginny out of danger, removed the DEs from Hogwarts, and didn't harm Harry beyond a stinging slap despite Harry's continued efforts to harm him), I still stand by that assessment. I may yet be proven wrong, at which time I'll have to reassess, but I don't think so. Oh, and as for Harry...yes, he's a student so Snape has a duty to protect him. But he doesn't have a duty to go *out of his way* to do so, as he did when he saved Harry from Quirrell in PS/SS. He didn't have to do that, as no one but himself seemed aware of Quirrell's plans. He could have let Harry die then and there, and been done with him, done with everything, without any blame being placed on him. I think his protection of Harry goes beyond the normal protection of teacher over student. I suspect there is some vow or promise involved, from Snape to DD, or even from Snape to Lily. It also helps explain Snape's resentment of Harry, beyond the likeness to James, beyond jealousy of Harry's role or place in DD's heart, and beyond Harry's actual habit of breaking rules that reinforces Snape's beliefs about him. And it explains Snape's near constant presence whenever Harry is doing something that might put him in danger. For me, it's too elegant a solution not to be true ;-) All IMO, Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Sep 11 20:28:36 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:28:36 -0000 Subject: Thin Air, Choices, and the Earthly/Soulfull Self In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139992 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > Saraquel: > *(snip)* > > Raining ? need an umbrella, just stick out your wand. Do you > > think you have to pay in advance ? 5 knuts an item, and a fine of > > 1 sickle if not returned in 24hours. Or worse, the nearest like > > object responds to the call... > *(snip)* > > Ceridwen: > I've been going the other way, that the conjuring of objects ... is > merely utilizing existant air molecules and transfiguring them into > whatever is needed at the time. A limited spell, and when the > thing is no longer needed (and maintained), it evaporates back into > air molecules. ... > bboyminn: People seem to be looking at this issue as Black or White, one or the other, when I think the answer is really both. Some things we see are transported or transferred while other objects are conjured out of the 'nothingness'. Certainly the house-elves are merely transporting/transferring food from the kitchens where they cook it, up to the house tables above. When Dumbledore makes tea and cakes appear in Hagrid's hut, he probably simply transferred them from the kitchens. Other objects were probably conjured. Remember, according to our good friend Albert Einstein matter and energy are interchangable. They are simply different states of the same essense much like water and ice are manifestations of the same core essense. So, I suspect Conjuring is simply a energy to matter conversion similar to the Replicators and Transporters found in the Star Trek series. The problem is that when things 'magically' appear in the books, it's usually not specified as to whether we are witnessing Conjuring or Transfer Charms. So, when Dumbledore brought the purple sleeping bags into the Great Hall, we really don't know if he created them or merely moved them from another location. However, we do know that Conjured objects are transient, they are temporary; eventually they spontaneously go back the the 'nothingness' from which they came. Given the short by variable life of conjured objects, I would suspect that the sleeping bags were real and moved from a storage area, while Molly's heavy white sauce was probably conjured to save a few calories. The chair that Dumbledore /drew/ in the air for Trelawney was probably conjured while the chair that he made appear for Harry at his trial was /probably/ a real chair pulled from some other location. The ropes or lashing created by the 'incarcerous' spell are probably conjured, they would only be need for an hour or two, so they would need no permanence. The sandwiches that McGonagall make appear in Snape's office for Harry and Ron were likely real and merely transferred from the kitchens. It would make little sense to feel 'air' to hungry children. Can't prove that, and I'm not ridgedly attached to it, so consider it more of an illustration than an absolute statement of fact. So, the answer is BOTH; we see instances of object magically appearing from both Conjuring and Transfer Spells. > > Saraquel: > > Or is it that we have the potential to be anything, and that > > through our choices we create a personality and base for what we > > are. > *(snip)* > Ceridwen: > > I think it's that. That we actually create ourselves through the > choices we make. Our own fear of ridicule or physical harm can stunt > our growth through making safe choices, or we can kill ourselves by > making risky choices. But with each choice, we add another block to > the pyramid of our self, ...snip.. > bboyminn: I think when we discuss this area we are getting deeply into the area of metaphysics. This is very abstact thinking. I have always take Dumbledore comment about 'choices' to mean that what we do with our abilities tells us more about ourselves than the abilities themselves. Harry has some characteristics that are Slytherin-like, something he greatly fears in himself, but those Slytherin-like abilities mean nothing because Harry by his very nature and his choices chooses a very Gryffindor way of life. Remember there is a context to Dumbledore's statement. Harry is worried about his Slytherin-ness and his similarities to Riddle. Dumbledore is saying, in essense, that those characteristics, real as they may be, mean nothing because Harry chooses the higher road in life. I'm not discounting what other people said, there is validity in their statements. I'm merely attempting to expand the perspective. In all likelihood we are all right to some extent, and are simply wise people looking at different aspects of the elephant. > Ceridwen: > > And, following the discussion, personality seems to be some facet of > the soul. If you think of a soul as a gemstone with many facets in > it, instead of a container, it might resonate more. Since, a facet > is cut into a stone, as choices build the ediface of the self. > Voldemort's apparent two-dimensional state can be a tip-off to what > happens to a diminished, or chipped, soul. > > Ceridwen. bboyminn: Again were are into very abstract aspects. I've always been of the belief that the soul is a higher aspect of the true Self that is separate from the body or earthly form. Our body and its associated personality and earthy concerns mean very little to the soul. To the soul, the body is just a vehicle that carries the soul, much like an automobile is a vehicle that carries the body. While your car may reflect your personality, it doesn't define your essential being. Once the soul crosses over into the 'eternal peace', I think it loses all attachment to the body. In otherwords, your talent, your personality, your priorities, your concerns are manifestations of your earthly Self, and that attachment to the earthly Self is lost when you return to pure soul. That's one of the reason that I don't think Harry is a Horcrux. The various aspects of Voldemort that we see manifested in Harry are aspects that are an extension of the Earthly Self of Voldemort, and are separated from his essential soul. As an illustration, consider reincarnation. One soul continues through many lives, but the attachment to each earthly Self is lost between reincarnations. When the body and soul are truly separated, the earthly self loses all meaning and value, and the greater soulfull Self takes over. I will say that the greater soulfull Self retains the spiritual lessons learned during the journey taken within the earthly Self. When essentail soulfull selves manifest themselves on earth or for other humans, they simply temporarily take on the form that humans will recongise and relate to. A ghost is someone who is afraid to let go of their earthly Self and return to the pure soulfull Self, hence they are trap halfway between life and 'death'. They have lost their earthly body, but still cling to their earthly essense; their attachment to the vehicle of this lifetime. Not sure if that's clear, but I think you get the general idea. Steve/bboyminn From moosiemlo at yahoo.com Sun Sep 11 04:53:14 2005 From: moosiemlo at yahoo.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 21:53:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Ways to Treat Werewolf Bites In-Reply-To: <1126306335.1660.91370.m29@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20050911045314.54526.qmail@web30006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 139993 Molley wrote: > SS/PS on page 220, chapter 15, Nicolas Flamel: "The > next morning in DADA, while copying down different ways of > treating werewolf bites, " Huh? Later canon makes it > clear that a bite from a werewolf has no cure. Or is > there a difference between "treating" a werewolf bite and > "curing" it? Lynda says: I would think this is right. That a werewolf bite can be treated, but not cured. For a real life example, I have psoriasis, a condition which can be treated with a number of medications, therapies, stress relieving measures, etc. and which can even be in remission fairly lengthy time periods, but which always crops back up again, because it can't be cured, although the symptoms can be treated and the outbreaks lessened to some extent. Lynda From tim at marvinhold.com Sun Sep 11 20:57:51 2005 From: tim at marvinhold.com (Tim) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:57:51 -0000 Subject: Clue on timing of Felix felicis potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139994 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Auria" wrote: > Something unexplained in HBP I think may be significant - see what > you think. > In the chapter 'Sectum sempra', Harry reads in his potions book that > Felix felicis takes 6 months to make. However Horace Slughorn was > persuaded to join Hogwarts during July, just before Harry's birthday > celeb at The Burrow, and Slughorn first presented the Felix felicis > potion to Harry's class near to the start of term (probably around > Sept/Oct I would guess) - it was definetely before Slughorn's > Christmas party anyway. So that means the Felix felicis potion > could not have been made by Slughorn within this time, as it is less > than a 6 month period. > > This leads to a couple of possible conclusions: > 1. Maybe the Felix felicis was already being brewed by someone else > at Hogwarts for another purpose. Perhaps (and this is pure guess on > my part) it was Dumbledore, who may have been using it during his > hunt for the horcruxes? > > 2. The potion could have been prepared by Snape. Again guess work, > but he could have started brewing for either his own use or again > someone else's, exactly who and why depending if you believe the ESE > or ESG theories on Snape. > > Whatever the reason, I feel this inconsistency in timing for brewing > the potion could be a deliberate clue by JK Rowling. Something > seemingly insignificant, and just 'dropped' into the text, but turns > out to mean a lot. > > anyone have any comments? > Auria Sluggy stated he was moving every week for the past year. But If I remember correctly he said something about sneaking the grand piano in past the neighbors being difficult. If he was sneaking a piano in, perhaps a cauldron or two is easy. Tim From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Sep 11 05:19:19 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 05:19:19 -0000 Subject: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort (was: Re: Draco's culpability...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139995 Hi--I've been lurking for a while, but hope this is a reasonable place to jump in. It just seems like in this thread the trouble isn't that people have different ideas about what happened, but that you're approaching completely different questions that have nothing to do with each other. > > Betsy Hp: > > A killer would have worked on something that kills. > > Draco worked on opening a door. > > Alla: > Draco worked on opening the door, which led something or > somebody who kills to Hogwarts. Very same thing in my mind. It > is not like he worked on opening the door just for the fun if > it, he knew perfectly well what will come out of this door, > IMO. > > So, I am not quite sure why he gets a pass from you since he > used less deadly means which led to the very same end as if > he would work on a bomb for Dumbledore, I don't think he *does* get a pass from her (correct me if I'm wrong, of course, Betsy). Her point isn't that working on the cabinet has nothing to do with DD getting killed. What Betsy is doing, from what I read in the thread, is not trying to absolve Draco of responsibility that is obviously his, but focusing more on the meaning the act in the context of his story and character. The fact that he focuses on fixing the cabinet is very important in terms of what's happening to him, because even though this is part of the assassination attempt it still shows Draco trying to avoid the actual murder he's supposed to commit, because he is slowly learning what murder really is, and developing a horror of it. The DEs are supposed to be there to give him alone a clear shot at DD. > Alla: > I thought that Katie and Ron and eventually Dumbledore who > suffered the most for the path Draco took. As to Dumbledore's > right, well as I said upthread, I believe it was within > Dumbledore's right to forgive Draco for assassination attempt > on him, but not on Katie and Ron. > > I am talking specifically about moral aspect, because maybe > indeed Dumbledore had some legal authority, I am not sure. This is true, but I think that's why JKR has DD say how no great harm has been done. Objectively, it's up to Katie and Ron to forgive or not forgive Draco, and almost killing someone is certainly not "no real harm done." But I think JKR is using DD to direct our understanding of what's at stake here. She's purposefully left Ron and Katie with no long lasting affects. They really are fine. Ron is not focused on bringing his poisoner to justice. Draco actually is suffering more than they are-this is canon. Ron's having a pretty good year. Katie doesn't remember anything much. Draco is falling apart. Now, of course their being okay doesn't wipe out his guilt--they were saved by pure luck. It's just that storywise everything seems to be telling me that this isn't about wrongs done to Katie and Ron that must be righted. In terms of the story, the attempted murders are important to a) show Harry there's a murder attempt going on and b) give Draco a taste of real killing. When he faces Dumbledore this isn't his first attempt at murder, so he knows exactly why he's hesitant. Without Ron and Katie (and perhaps his own near-murder via Harry's spell) he might still hold back, but I don't think he'd look so nauseous. He put the necklace plan in motion and Katie went to St. Mungo's. In March something he'd done months before that he probably thought just got confiscated suddenly pops up again, almost killing Ron. As weird as it seems to consider the near deaths of two students simply part of another students' character development, within this series I don't think it's that out of the ordinary. Similarly, I don't feel cheated that Harry wasn't expelled for his Sectumsempra. Bill is the one person who carries lasting physical scars as a result of what Draco's done, but even with him JKR was careful to not make him a werewolf and not make him dead (which Draco thinks he is--his voice going up an octave when he speaks of it, much as Neville's voice goes high when he talks about Moody's class on Crucio). He was even hurt by Fenrir, whom Draco did not intend to be there. He shows up after Draco's aborted choice to lower his wand, and Draco speaks up (for the last time in canon) to assure DD he didn't bring Greyback in on purpose (as opposed to defiantly letting DD think he'd done it on purpose--he's begun to swing towards DD by then: appearing a cold DE is no longer a priority). Again, that's not to say "it's not Draco's fault" what happened to Bill. I'm just saying that it seems like the author is going somewhere very specific with this story. She's getting Draco to the point where he's on the edge, finally understanding mortality and ready to make an actual informed choice based on he himself alone. > > Betsy Hp: > > First of all, it's *exactly* like he was being held at > > gunpoint. > > Alla: > Well, one can look at it like that sure, but it is not a fact, > because I see no sign of any duress in Draco bragging to his > friends on the train. I think it is a fact. We know Voldemort has threatened to kill him and his family. Draco even speaks of the threat in a scene where he thinks he's alone. It seems like one of those face value things to me. Draco on the train to Hogwarts is a completely different person from the Draco of only a few months later. He thinks killing will be do-able (morally speaking and physically). Voldemort has perhaps not even threatened him yet (or if he has, the reality has not sunk in). At some point Draco does wake up to the reality, and that includes noticing that he and his mother being held at gunpoint. To us readers it may seem simple to go to DD to make it all better, but I don't think that's realistic for Draco. Even if Draco believed DD would help him, he'd have good reason to think he couldn't. Whatever his thinking, it seems like this is the situation the author has tried to put the character in in order to make his choice a clear one: kill or be killed. First she strips away his delusions that this is a glorious job, then forces him to stick with it even then through threats. Having Dumbledore swoop in gets her away from the very moment of choice she's working towards,imo. We can't judge him against what we think he should have done, or what we would have done, knowing what we do, if we want to understand him. I think if we're analyzing the actual story we have to only look at what he does and why. To take another example of someone in that type of situation, Peter swore allegiance to the Order, but when it came down to it he chose to side with Voldemort and let his friends be killed. Then he chose to kill to save himself. This all probably being after Peter, like Draco, had gotten a taste of the reality of the situation and learned what he would really do when push came to shove. Peter, too, no doubt enthusiastically accepted the task of being in the Order at the time. > Alla: > I KNOW what I want for Draco, that is if he is truly remorseful > of course. I liked Phoenixgod suggestion about stripping Draco > of all his wealth of course. That would be very neat for dear > Draco to go poor and finally feel how hard that was for Ron. > > But I know what I want to see even more - I want Draco to face > Katie and Ron and beg for their forgiveness. That is exactly > what I want to see Snape doing, come to think of it - beg for > Harry forgiveness for making him an orphan, but I doubt that > especially as to Snape I am going to get my wish. I don't see what this kind of punishment means for canon. In HBP JKR gave Draco a story about someone who'd been trying to be a certain thing all his life, and who now realizes the horror of what he's wished for. He is having to face the truth about himself and his choices--he's having to make choices for the first time in his life, based on who he really is and wants. He's grown up, basically. He will, I suspect, have to make retribution for the things he has done. But I also think Draco's sixth year suffering went quite a bit deeper than wearing hand-me-down clothes. Looking ahead the main question for me is to wonder what he may do next, not how he will be punished. > Alla: > The small difference of course is that I don't remember twins > planning assacination attempt on Montague. I'm not sure it's so much better to be killed by a planned assassin rather than someone who just cared so little about me they hurt me and didn't care. I don't know how the law would come down on DD's death, but I think the twins would be considered more responsible for whatever happened to Montague as the people who physically hurt him than Draco would be for DD, whom he did not kill even when surrounded by DEs. He would be more responsible for what happened to Katie and Ron. But it's a story, not a trial. It's not, imo, about punishment or making people suffer. The twins will probably not be punished for what happened to Montague except the way the text has punished them: they showed Draco the way into the castle. That's why I get nervous about even thinking about what I think should happen to characters or what they deserve, because I wouldn't think the story would give me what I needed. It gets back to judging things against what I think should happen, rather than reading what does happen and seeing what that means. It's not that the one shouldn't ever be done, but they're two different things. -m From rytal at yahoo.co.uk Sun Sep 11 21:06:55 2005 From: rytal at yahoo.co.uk (Auria) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 21:06:55 -0000 Subject: Clue on timing of Felix felicis potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139996 > Saraquel: > Hi Auria, I disagree, I always thought that Slughorn would have kept > some brewing as part of his defence system whilst lying low, in case > of emergencies. He certainly had some Dragon's Blood hanging around. > Mark my words, that dusty dragon's blookd will come into its own in > Book 7. Maybe we should speculate on the 12 uses it could be put to! > > Saraquel Hi Saraquel I did think about that already but have to disagree with you. Slughorn was on the run, moving from place to place. The potion needs to brew for 6 months - a difficult thing to do if he was travelling around a lot. Auria From rytal at yahoo.co.uk Sun Sep 11 21:11:31 2005 From: rytal at yahoo.co.uk (Auria) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 21:11:31 -0000 Subject: Clue on timing of Felix felicis potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139997 > Sluggy stated he was moving every week for the past year. But If I > remember correctly he > said something about sneaking the grand piano in past the neighbors > being difficult. If he > was sneaking a piano in, perhaps a cauldron or two is easy. > > Tim Hi Tim Yes an object can be moved easily, including a cauldron. But a burning flame and heat surely cannot! If the potion has to brew for 6 months (which I took to mean over a hot flame) then I can't see how Sluggy could have transported that around. Auria From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Sep 11 21:31:46 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 21:31:46 -0000 Subject: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort (was: Re: Draco's culpability...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139998 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: -m: > Bill is the one person who carries lasting physical scars as a > result of what Draco's done, but even with him JKR was careful to > not make him a werewolf and not make him dead (which Draco thinks > he is--his voice going up an octave when he speaks of it, much as > Neville's voice goes high when he talks about Moody's class on > Crucio). He was even hurt by Fenrir, whom Draco did not intend to > be there. He shows up after Draco's aborted choice to lower his > wand, and Draco speaks up (for the last time in canon) to assure > DD he didn't bring Greyback in on purpose. Geoff: Let me put in one wee, small word of support for Draco. Draco had nothing to do with Fenrir coming. Dumbledore remarks: '"I am a little shocked that Draco here invited you, of all people, into the school where his friends live..." "I didn't," breathed Malfoy. He was not looking at Greyback; he did not seem to want to even glance at him. "I didn't know he was going to come..."' (HBP "The Lightning-struck Tower" p.554 UK edition) Draco is obviously very taken aback by Fenrir's presence and wants to make it clear that it was not his doing, whatever else he had been up to. Presumably the werewolf attached himself to the Death Eaters. From msbeadsley at yahoo.com Sun Sep 11 22:06:47 2005 From: msbeadsley at yahoo.com (msbeadsley) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 22:06:47 -0000 Subject: Voldemort good/bad. Was: Twisted Irony In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 139999 Rebecca Hoskins wrote: >>>But I do have to stress that an upbringing such as his [Voldemort's] is not guaranteed to bring about the development of a psychopath. I have not read David Pelzer's books, " A child called 'it'" and " A boy called David", but I know that he was extremely badly abused for most of his childhood and had no period of love during those formulative years at all. His treatment was far worse than that of Tom Riddle and Harry Potter together. Yet he has somehow managed to become a normal and emotionally sound individual, fully capable of love and generosity. A lack of love at a young age can bring about some terrible problems, but it is not certain that this will happen, as David Pelzer can testify.<<< If you had read Dave Pelzer's books, you would know that the abuse in his life did not begin until after an incident where his drunken mother broke his arm accidentally when he was four years old. Prior to that he was loved, cared for, and cuddled. Although I do not have the books available at the moment to quote from (I own the first three of the four he has written (and although one is called "A Man Named Dave," none are called "A Boy Called David")), here's a link where you can find synopses and many quotes: http://www.metroactive.com/sonoma/pelzer95.html On the other hand, the issue of whether or not psychopathy unfailingly results from infant/child failure-to-bond (or attachment disorder) refers to a baby's development from birth to 3 years of age. Those who do not have a consistent, loving caretaker to attach to at all during that crucial period miss out on actual brain development thought necessary to an ability to love/empathize later. Although not all mental health professionals are willing to make a flat declaration that babies with profound attachment disorder all grow up to be psychopaths, much of the reason is that such controlled clinical trials on human young are frowned upon, and therefore all of the data has had to be cobbled together retroactively. There are gorilla studies, however, which indicate just that. An awful lot of agonized adoptive parents of children they got after that "window" had closed have a lot to say on the subject as well. In re: Pelzer, I could fill this post with quotes, but I'd rather anyone who's interested follow the link (and maybe even actually obtain and *read* his books). They're marvelous; how this man survived such extreme and harrowing child abuse for eight or nine years (4-12) and grew up to be a contributing member of society and a loving person and father is one of the most inspiring stories I've ever known. It seems absolutely obvious to me, based on canon from the books and from JKR interviews, that something like attachment disorder is going to play a large part in the final disposition of Voldemort as a character. I have to go back yet again to a quote from JKR... http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/070 5-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-3.htm MA: "Has Snape ever been loved by anyone?" JKR: "Yes, he has, which in some ways makes him more culpable even than Voldemort, who never has." Isn't it interesting that she pops up spontaneously with a mention of Voldemort here, when the question is whether or not *Snape* was ever loved? Why does JKR show us TMR's infant history so plainly; and why would Dumbledore suggest Harry was feeling sorry for Voldemort? Sandy aka msbeadsley, whose fella suggests that filk should be "Foggy *When* A Courtin'" (instead of "Foggy Went A Courtin'"); any takers? Somebody take this one off my hands, please; I'm still working on one based on a song from Roxy Music which would be obvious to anyone who really thought about it... From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Sun Sep 11 22:22:55 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 22:22:55 -0000 Subject: Thin air/Choices Was re:sex/VanishingCabinet/SoulsEtc/Badger/Ch.2/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140000 Saraquel: Ahhh! determinism or free will, nature or nurture, we should be able to dispatch this one fairly quickly with a few well chosen thoughts :-) >Houynhmhnm wrote: >I think you are right about the quote from CoS. And the behavior of >the characters seldom deviates from the pattern that has been >established for them. Jen wrote: >If JKR's going with a *pure* Calvinist view, the actions of her >characters mean nothing as she's already pre-ordained their core >essence by age 11. >But JKR's choosing to hinge a huge theme of her story on the idea >that blood content means nothing for who a person chooses to >become. >Clearly Voldemort created his future by chosing to act on the >prophecy as he did. I guess the question is: Did Voldemort have a >choice WRT his choice or was he predestined to choose to act the >way he did. >Ffred wrote: >I suspect that had I been Harry, I'd have replied >"Yes, Headmaster, I rather thought that that was inherent in the >definition of the word prophecy. Otherwise, how is it any different >from Stan and Ernie having a pint in the pub before the game on >Saturday and Ernie saying "The Cannons will walk it this afternoon"? Saraquel: Working on the balance of the theme's in the book, I think I'm going to have to definitely come down on the side of choice ultimately being the most significant thing in the Potterverse, over the power of nature or nurture or predeterminism. That there is an element of choice about whether a prohpecy is fulfilled, I think clinches the deal for me. I think that DD exhorts the whole school to beware of what comes naturally and engage reason, in his, "choose what is right over what is easy." That characters "seldom deviate from the pattern that has been established" could well be part of the plotting of the book, IMO - I would like to add ? up until now. I think part of the banginess of book 7 will be characters facing situations where the right choice (one contrary to their pattern) will be their salvation. The easy choice, which follows their pattern, will be their damnation. Although this obviously applies to the villains and suspected villains, I think that JKR is definitely setting Harry up for this to happen to him. Choose vengeance and you will fail to vanquish Voldemort, choose love and you will triumph. Lily *chose* love over everything. It was her choice which deflected the AK. As to whether Voldemort had a "choice WRT his choice", I think because, in the past, he chose to effectively, systematically, eliminate his range of choices by requiring of himself that there was only one way the world could be seen, his present is in a sense pre-determined by himself. Something along the lines of: 1 Voldemort decides the world should be black and white (a choice). 2 Voldemort consistently interprets everything in terms of black and white (the implementation of the choice). 3 For Voldemort the world *is* now black and white. (the result of the consistently applying 2) 4 Voldemort now has effectively no choice but to see the world as black and white. (he has effectively predetermined his present choices by his past choice) Of course, the argument against that is that his original nature predetermined that he had no choice about how to see the world in the first place :-) But then why bother to have a concept of choice at all? Saraquel Who would like to thank Houyhnhnm for the Kiekegaard quote which she enjoyed immensely. And also to say that your name always makes me think of a form of traditional Scottish scat singing, so brings a smile to my face. (I play traditional Scottish fiddle music.) From lady.indigo at gmail.com Sun Sep 11 21:23:52 2005 From: lady.indigo at gmail.com (lady.indigo at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:23:52 -0400 Subject: Clue on timing of Felix felicis potion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <63378ee7050911142378506895@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140001 Auria wrote: > Yes an object can be moved easily, including a cauldron. But a burning > flame and heat surely cannot! If the potion has to brew for 6 months > (which I took to mean over a hot flame) then I can't see how Sluggy > could have transported that around. He could have brewed it before he started sneaking around, couldn't he? The amount of times and the timing of when he's taken Felix Felicis shows that he's been brewing it for quite a while. He's probably got quite a stockpile. - Lady Indigo [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lady.indigo at gmail.com Sun Sep 11 21:42:47 2005 From: lady.indigo at gmail.com (lady.indigo at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:42:47 -0400 Subject: Choices: (was Re: re:sex/VanishingCabinet/SoulsEtc/Badger/Ch.2/ThinAir/Choices/Stag/deadHouseElves) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <63378ee705091114425f444e91@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140002 Aberforth's goat: > His true identity, his > > soul, his platonic essence. And that person is, fundamentally, a > > Gryffindor. He may not even have known it, but there's a white hat in > > his soul and when it comes to a crisis, he'll wear it. Jen Reese: > If JKR's going with a *pure* Calvinist view, the actions of her > characters mean nothing as she's already pre-ordained their core > essence by age 11. Peter is a Gryffindor at heart and thus will be > revealed as a Gryffindor in the end. His failure of will and indirect > destruction of the Potter family means nothing because he is > predestined to be a white hat in the end. Draco lowering his wand and > Snape choosing to be on Dumbledore's side for even awhile (if he did > indeed choose that) mean nothing becuase both are fated to be revealed > as evil, along with most of the other Slytherins in the end. Harry is > revealed as a Gryffindor early on and continues to make the choice to > be brave-at-heart and good, like his mom, dad, & Dumbledore. Regulus > may have chosen to destroy the Horcrux in an act of bravery, but this > did not change his pre-destined course as a DE and evil at his core. > Just hopping in here: I don't see how the omnipotence of the Sorting Hat and the arrangement of the houses says anything about a lack of free will, really. Gryffindors are brave and idealistic, Slytherins are ambitious and cunning, Ravenclaws are intelligent and perceptive - but I think the mistake a lot of people make (and that JKR makes sometimes in not showing enough balance) is that these traits may be inherent in a person but that doesn't define someone as good or evil. Ambition isn't necessarily a bad trait; it can actually keep people from becoming slothful, if they make the right choices. The bravery that comes from the willingness to die for a cause can be applied to the wrong causes and help it do some major damage. Rowling doesn't show a lot of good Slytherins (even the best of the bunch has engaged in theivery and shady business practices) but even she has gone on record saying that not all Slytherins do the things Draco does, and the house is required for balance. In short: you might be born with aspects of your personality, as per astrology, but you get to decide what direction these traits go to. Not predestined at all, I think. - Lady Indigo [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Mon Sep 12 00:07:32 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:07:32 EDT Subject: Spinner's End--further evidence for DDsMan!Snape?? Message-ID: <5b.711cfb65.305620c4@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140003 I have been pondering Snape's comments to Bellatrix at Spinner's End, when he explained away the things that appeared against Voldemort (threatening Quirrell, not coming immediately to Voldemort's side) and the things he did to assist Voldemort (turning in Em. Vance, helping to dispose of Sirius Black). Yet, if Snape was ESE, why didn't he mention the two worst things many ESE supporters suspect him of doing--namely, opening Harry's mind for Voldemort during the Occlumency lessons, and delaying notifying the Order that Harry had gone to the DoM? You'd think this would be something ESE!Snape would be happy to brag about, as it would be clearly the most direct and helpful thing he's so far done to assist Voldemort. Yet Snape doesn't mention it. Why? I can't come up with a reason if he's ESE. OTOH if he's DD's man, he wouldn't necessarily know Harry's interpretation of the Occlumency disaster, as Harry has told others but certainly not Snape of his belief that Snape was deliberately hindering him during the lessons. Even if DD'sMan!Snape had become aware of Harry's interpretation via DD, he still wouldn't use that to mislead Bellatrix, as this is certainly too specific a claim to spin should Bellatrix relay Snape's words back to Voldemort (as opposed to his more general claim of "assistance" in informing on E. Vance and getting rid of Sirius). I confess I can't think of any reason for Snape not to tell Bellatrix that he delayed notifying the Order of Harry's suspected journey to the DoM. If he's ESE! then he has no reason to keep it quiet. If he's DD's Man, then he had no reason to delay notifying the Order in the first place. I can only conclude that this time delay comes down to JKR's well-known difficulties applying maths. In any case, the fact that Snape didn't mention the Occlumency lessons or take any credit for their disastrous consequences seems to me a fairly strong indication of DDsMan!Snape. Thoughts? Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sherriola at earthlink.net Mon Sep 12 00:30:22 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:30:22 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Spinner's End--further evidence for DDsMan!Snape?? In-Reply-To: <5b.711cfb65.305620c4@aol.com> Message-ID: <005401c5b731$2b789350$1821f204@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 140004 I confess I can't think of any reason for Snape not to tell Bellatrix that he delayed notifying the Order of Harry's suspected journey to the DoM. If he's ESE! then he has no reason to keep it quiet. If he's DD's Man, then he had no reason to delay notifying the Order in the first place. I can only conclude that this time delay comes down to JKR's well-known difficulties applying maths. Julie Sherry now: Helping dispose of Sirius was part of the consequence of Snape delaying informing the order about Harry rushing off to the ministry. After all, he knew Harry thought Sirius was there. I've considered most of his meaning about that to be the information he could have provided, but the delay, if there was one, certainly fits there too. Sherry From scarah at gmail.com Mon Sep 12 00:41:38 2005 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:41:38 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Spinner's End--further evidence for DDsMan!Snape?? In-Reply-To: <5b.711cfb65.305620c4@aol.com> References: <5b.711cfb65.305620c4@aol.com> Message-ID: <32025905091117413ec27417@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140005 Sarah: Maybe (whether ESE or not) Snape is keeping the fact that he's an Occlumens in the first place from Bella. It would only cause more questions from her. Alternatively, even if she knows he's an Occlumens, maybe the fact that he was training Harry is too big of a can of worms to open by telling her. She knows Occlumency, and knows how to train someone in Occlumency. She would also be aware of any inherent security risks one faces when teaching Occlumency. I know Snape used the Pensieve as sort of a safeguard (which ended up backfiring) but surely ALL the incriminating things he knows are not contained in the mere three thoughts he placed there. It would take ages to use a Pensieve to truly "clean house" for someone with Snape's history. Maybe these were calculated risks that ESE Snape was willing to take to keep his cover, or that DDM Snape was willing to take out of loyalty, or that OFH Snape was willing to take for whatever reason, but Bella would find reason to consider the risk less excusable. Snape does not take credit for delaying the arrival of the Order at the DoM, interesting since Bella does sort of chide him about it. ("They were joined, as you very well know, by half of the Order before long!") Instead he puts a different spin on it by saying it was his information that helped dispose of Sirius, though he is careful to compliment Bella for having finished him off. I notice this is a manipulation technique that we see Tom Riddle using later, and which Harry notes well, has served him in the past! (It was very well done, thought Harry, the hesitancy, the casual tone, the careful flattery, none of it overdone. He, Harry, had had too much experience of trying to wheedle information out of re?luctant people not to recognize a master at work.) Sarah [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rytal at yahoo.co.uk Mon Sep 12 00:41:52 2005 From: rytal at yahoo.co.uk (Auria) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:41:52 -0000 Subject: Clue on timing of Felix felicis potion In-Reply-To: <63378ee7050911142378506895@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140006 > He could have brewed it before he started sneaking around, couldn't he? The > amount of times and the timing of when he's taken Felix Felicis shows that > he's been brewing it for quite a while. He's probably got quite a stockpile. > > - Lady Indigo > Yes I suppose thats possible. Oh well, back to the drawing board....and here I was all excited that I'd found a clue :-) Auria From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Sep 12 00:57:58 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:57:58 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End--further evidence for DDsMan!Snape?? In-Reply-To: <5b.711cfb65.305620c4@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140007 Julie: > Yet, if Snape was ESE, why didn't he mention > the two worst things many ESE supporters suspect > him of doing--namely, opening Harry's mind for > Voldemort during the Occlumency lessons, and delaying > notifying the Order that Harry had gone to the DoM? houyhnhnm: I am a strong DD's Man!Snape partisan myself so I hate to say it, but I'm not sure this argument holds water. I don't think Snape would want Voldemort or the DEs to know he had notified the Order *at all*, especially in consideration of the way things turned out. I think the supposed *delay* in notifying the Order is a very weak argument anyway for ESE!Snape. I mean how was Snape supposed to figure out that six teenagers going off into the Forbidden Forest without brooms would be able to make it all the way to London. He reacted pretty quickly, IMO, and could have waited much longer without arousing suspicion. Making the mind initially more vulnerable is apparently an expected side effect of Occlumency training. Dumbledore explains to Harry why he did not teach Harry Occlumency himself. "I have already said that it was a mistake for me not to teach you myself, though I was sure, at the time, that nothing could have been more dangerous than *to open your mind even further to Voldemort* while in my presence." (OotP, AE pbk, p. 833) So opening Harry's mind up to Voldemort was not something Snape did that any other teacher of Occlumency would not have done as well. I've wondered if Voldemort knew, though, (via Harry) that Snape was giving Occlumency lessons to Harry and if he had to explain himself. But Snape could have taken credit for *sabotaging* the Occlumency lessons. Two possible reasons why he didn't. 1. He adheres to the KISS school spying. The more elaborate he makes it, the greater the chance of screwing up. 2. He didn't intentionally fail. He succumbed to his own emotions, which, for Snape, would be unbearable. He can't face up to what happened during the Occlumency lessons, therefore he can't use that as raw material for his spinning. From MadameSSnape at aol.com Mon Sep 12 01:06:32 2005 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 21:06:32 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Spinner's End--further evidence for DDsMan!Snape?? Message-ID: <54.4c305747.30562e98@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140008 In a message dated 9/11/2005 9:03:06 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scarah at gmail.com writes: She knows Occlumency, and knows how to train someone in Occlumency. ===================== Sherrie here: Did I miss something? I don't recall anything in canon that says that Bella is an occlumens, or knows how to train someone else in that particular art. I don't think she does know it - and after a dozen years in Azkaban, with the dementors, I don't think she'd have been able to maintain it if she did. Sherrie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 12 01:10:24 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 01:10:24 -0000 Subject: Hard time for Snape?(was Re: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort) In-Reply-To: <7a.7b72699f.3055e2a9@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140009 > Julie: > I don't think Snape wanted to spend those years prior to Voldemort's > return in Azkaban. But he could have gone into hiding, something DD > could have arranged if *DD* wanted to do so. But I also believe the > reason DD vouched for Snape is because Snape agreed to help > him defeat Voldemort. Alla: I am not sure I agree, Julie. For all we know( unless I forgot something in canon of course), Dumbledore vouched for Snape unconditionally, no strings attached, as long as Snape showed genuine remorse. That seems to me to be more in character for Dumbledore,as I read him of course, than saving Snape only if Snape does something for Dumbledore. If Snape was truly remorseful, I believe that he chose to pay the debt that he owed to Light side, if I may, after he became DE. Julie: Part of that deal probably also involved > protecting Harry. And Snape teaching at Hogwarts keeps him near > DD, so DD can both protect and keep an eye on him, and where > Snape can also help protect Hogwarts and strategize with DD once > Voldemort returned. Alla: Again, do we have a proof that Dumbledore saved Snape from Azkaban only IF Snape agrees to something? I believe that it is more of fandom creation which of course leads to Puppetmaster!Dumbledore, which I am very doubtful of. JMO, of course. Julie: > I do think Snape was grateful to be saved from Azkaban. And what > better way to show gratitude than to serve DD in the above manner? > And to put his life on the line while doing so? My point about not > getting the position he preferred doesn't negate that gratitude. I was > just point out that Snape being at Hogwarts all these years teaching, > and later protecting Harry, may not--probably isn't--how he would have > chosen to spend his life, before he limited his choices with his own > regrettable actions (telling Voldemort about the prophecy). Alla: Oh, but Snape made a choice - to join Voldemort, no? After he renounced Voldemort, IF he truly did, he does not have much choice left, IMO, IF he truly decided to behave as a decent person. Again, IMO. What do you mean, that is not how Snape would have chosen to spend his life? He does not have much options left, IMO and what I am saying that Dumbledore gave him the easiest one, which is possible for the decent person. Again, I think that having a nice life of Hogwarts professor is much better than Azkaban cell, even if you think that Voldie will return eventually and you may need to fight him. Julie: > In the end, he did get a nice deal for 12 years, before Harry showed > up at Hogwarts and Voldemort returned. But then came the time > Snape probably dreaded (but still has willingly faced), the time to pay > up. (Another reason why he must have been less than thrilled to see > Harry Potter arrive at Hogwarts!) If Snape does turn out to be DD's > man, then he's certainly been meeting that obligation. Alla: Well, yes, of course and that is what I had been saying. I am just arguing that as part of his penance, Snape got off much easier than he should have been, IMO. Julie: > Oh, and as for Harry...yes, he's a student so Snape has a duty > to protect him. But he doesn't have a duty to go *out of his way* > to do so, as he did when he saved Harry from Quirrell in PS/SS. > He didn't have to do that, as no one but himself seemed aware > of Quirrell's plans. He could have let Harry die then and there, and > been done with him, done with everything, without any blame > being placed on him. Alla: I disagree that Snape went out of his way in PS/SS. I think that being a former(?) DE, he recognised the dark curse faster than any other teacher and reacted faster. But that is JMO of course. JMO, Alla From scarah at gmail.com Mon Sep 12 01:15:29 2005 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:15:29 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Spinner's End--further evidence for DDsMan!Snape?? In-Reply-To: <54.4c305747.30562e98@aol.com> References: <54.4c305747.30562e98@aol.com> Message-ID: <32025905091118151804f128@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140010 Sherrie: > Did I miss something? I don't recall anything in canon that says that > Bella > is an occlumens, or knows how to train someone else in that particular > art. 'There was a pause and then Snape said quietly, "Ah . . . Aunt Bellatrix has been teaching you Occlumency, I see. What thoughts are you trying to conceal from your master, Draco?"' -HBP, Chapter 15 Sarah [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Sep 12 01:24:57 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 01:24:57 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End--further evidence for DDsMan!Snape?? In-Reply-To: <5b.711cfb65.305620c4@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140011 Julie wrote: > > I confess I can't think of any reason for Snape not to tell Bellatrix that > he delayed notifying the Order of Harry's suspected journey to the DoM. > If he's ESE! then he has no reason to keep it quiet. If he's DD's Man, > then he had no reason to delay notifying the Order in the first place. I > can only conclude that this time delay comes down to JKR's well- known > difficulties applying maths. Potioncat: Congratulations to Neri, the delay has almost become canon! The thread about this has been my all time favorite, even though I disagree with the "delay" conculsion. DD says that Snape responded immediately and BADASS ALBUS it is. Given that Patronuses are the method of communication, and they appear to take some time to get from here to there and also appear to be one-way and given that JKR has not always relied on scientific charts for her data...I don't think Snape delayed. Potioncat (who cannot remember how ALBUS breaks down, but the other is Because Albus Dumbledore Says So....) From MadameSSnape at aol.com Mon Sep 12 01:31:31 2005 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 21:31:31 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Spinner's End--further evidence for DDsMan!Snape?? Message-ID: <8a.2ef115c7.30563473@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140012 In a message dated 9/11/2005 9:15:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scarah at gmail.com writes: 'There was a pause and then Snape said quietly, "Ah . . . Aunt Bellatrix has been teaching you Occlumency, I see. What thoughts are you trying to conceal from your master, Draco?"' -HBP, Chapter 15 ================ Sherrie here: Ooops - as our Sister Robert Anne says, "My bad" - I did miss that one. Interesting - wonder what Bella is hiding... Sherrie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 12 01:45:01 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 01:45:01 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End--further evidence for DDsMan!Snape?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140013 > > Potioncat: > Congratulations to Neri, the delay has almost become canon! The > thread about this has been my all time favorite, even though I > disagree with the "delay" conculsion. Alla: Yes, I want to bow to Neri too and I DO agree with delay's conclusion. :-) Potioncat: > DD says that Snape responded immediately and BADASS ALBUS it is. Alla: Well, DD also says that Snape INTENDED to search the forest, he never says that Snape actually did, no? "In the meantime he, professor Snape, intended to search the forest for you" - OOP, paperback, p.830. I did found this quote to be suspicious prior to HBP, I find it doubly suspicious now. > houyhnhnm: >> I think the supposed *delay* in notifying the Order is a very weak > argument anyway for ESE!Snape. Alla: Here is the link to Neri's post which, I think is in the middle of the thread, but sums up his argument perfectly. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/108146 I think it is a very strong argument, but JMO of course. JMO, Alla From AllieS426 at aol.com Mon Sep 12 02:36:48 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 02:36:48 -0000 Subject: Thin air/Choices In-Reply-To: <003801c5b6fe$b8befd40$704b6d51@f3b7j4> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140014 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "manawydan" wrote: > houyhnhnm quoted: > >"If Voldemort had never heard of the prophecy, would it have been > >fulfilled? Would it have meant anything? Of course not. Do you > >think every prophecy in the Hall of Prophecy has been fulfilled?" > > I suspect that had I been Harry, I'd have replied > > "Yes, Headmaster, I rather thought that that was inherent in the definition > of the word prophecy. Otherwise, how is it any different from Stan and Ernie > having a pint in the pub before the game on Saturday and Ernie saying "The > Cannons will walk it this afternoon"? Even if the Cannons were in the next > cubicle and are inspired to greater efforts because they overhear how much > confidence their fans have." > > Have to admit I was a little disappointed by JKR on that one. > > hwyl > > Ffred Ffred, I was also. All that drama surrounding Harry's divination exam in PoA and Trelawney going into a trance to deliver... something that might not even happen???? I took it as a given that all the prophecies were things that would actually come to pass. Allie From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Sep 12 02:48:16 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 02:48:16 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End--further evidence for DDsMan!Snape?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140016 > Alla: > > Well, DD also says that Snape INTENDED to search the forest, he > never says that Snape actually did, no? > > "In the meantime he, professor Snape, intended to search the forest > for you" - OOP, paperback, p.830. Pippin: Dumbledore says that Snape intended to search the forest because he hasn't had a chance to talk to Snape and confirm it. Dumbledore returned to Order HQ, questioned Kreacher, showed up for the dramatic rescue, spent half an hour conferencing with Fudge, then returned to Hogwarts to debrief Harry. Dumbledore can't know whether Snape went to search the forest or some emergency at the school intervened. Besides, I've thought of a much stronger plotline to implicate Snape than some hypothetical delay in notifying the Order. Snape claims in Spinner's End that he gave Voldemort information about Sirius. What if that's true, except that he did it on Dumbledore's orders? Suppose he informed Voldie that Sirius had returned to England? And Voldemort gave Snape permission to kill Sirius, if he could get away with it? *That* would explain why Sirius *had* to stay in hiding, *and* why Dumbledore chose not to hide him in Hogsmeade near Harry. It would be awkward for Snape to explain why he hadn't succeeded in murdering Sirius if he was roaming around the country, and even worse if he was spotted nosing around Hogsmeade. Of course Sirius would have been briefed on all this, which throws an interesting light on the handshake at the end of GoF, and the almost duel in OOP. Now imagine Harry's reaction when he finds out that Snape had orders to kill Sirius! That raises the stakes nicely. I was really hoping Harry would find a better reason to think Snape had killed Sirius than expert taunting -- that is *so* Monty Python, IMO. Pippin From vmonte at yahoo.com Mon Sep 12 03:12:53 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 03:12:53 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End--further evidence for DDsMan!Snape?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140017 vmonte: I was looking through some old interviews and I reread this one: Fry, Stephen, interviewer: J.K. Rowling at the Royal Albert Hall, 26 June 2003. "How do you decide what the baddies would be like?" JK Rowling: This is going to sound awful but I've met enough people I didn't like in my life to have a fairly shrewd idea of what I want baddies to be like. I think from letters I get from people your age that nearly all of you here knows a Draco Malfoy and girls will almost certainly know a Pansy Parkinson. We all grow up with those sort of people and certainly as adults we've all have met people like Lucius Malfoy and some of the other characters. Stephen Fry: Malfoy, Goyle and Crabbe are almost irredeemably bad ? certainly there's almost nothing attractive about about Goyle and Crabbe, repulsive ? Malfoy is reasonably stylish JK Rowling: Malfoy is certainly stylish in the film ? Stephen Fry: Yes, and even in the books there is a certain flair. Most characters like Snape are hard to love but there is a sort of ambiguity ? you can't quite decide - something sad about him ? lonely and it's fascinating when you think he's going to be the evil one a party from Voldemort obviously in the first book then slowly you get this idea he's not so bad after all. JK Rowling: Yes but you shouldn't think him too nice. It is worth keeping an eye on old Severus definitely! This interview was held a few days after Order of the Phoenix came out (book 5). At this point in time there are only two books left. What do the majority of you think JKR is refering to in her comments above? Especially now that in book 6 Dumbledore is murdered? In retrospect this comment makes sense. I would have to agree with JKR that Snape is not so nice after all. (Not that I ever thought he was nice.) MA: OK, big big big book six question. Is Snape evil? JKR: [Almost laughing] Well, you've read the book, what do you think? ES: She's trying to make you say it categorically. MA: Well, there are conspiracy theorists, and there are people who will claim - JKR: Cling to some desperate hope [laughter] - ES: Yes! MA: Yes! ES: Like certain shippers we know! [All laugh] Vivian http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2003/0626-alberthall-fry.htm http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet- anelli-1.htm From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Sep 12 04:10:10 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 04:10:10 -0000 Subject: Hard time for Snape?(was Re: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140018 > Alla: > I am not sure I agree, Julie. For all we know( unless I forgot > something in canon of course), Dumbledore vouched for Snape > unconditionally, no strings attached, as long as Snape showed > genuine remorse. That seems to me to be more in character for > Dumbledore,as I read him of course, than saving Snape only if Snape > does something for Dumbledore. zgirnius: I agree that "no strings attached" is in character for Dumbledore. But he would not have had the power to just make any charges against Snape disappear, and he certainly would not (IMO) have lied for him. So all he would have been able to do for Snape is show up as a 'character witness' at a trial to say 'Yes, he may have been a Death Eater and done all these terrible things, but he's *truly* sorry.' I can see this having some effect on length of sentence, maybe, given DD had an impresive reputation, but not on the verdict. But we know what Dumbledore actually did say in Snape's defense. (GoF, Pensieve scene of Karkaroff's hearing, after Karkaroff names Snape as a Death Eater. Dumbledore states he has already testified about this before. And that while Snape was once a DE, he started to spy for the good guys at great risk to himself before Voldemort's fall. And is now no more a DE than DD himself. Excuse the paraphrasing...) I think it is reasonable to suppose that the question of 'what now'? certainly came up in the conversation when Snape came to DD. Both men would have known that DD's ability to help Snape would be greater if Snape helped the 'good guys'. Alla: > If Snape was truly remorseful, I believe that he chose to pay the > debt that he owed to Light side, if I may, after he became DE. zgirnius: I agree. (Though it did also have positive practical consequences for him...) > Julie: > > Part of that deal probably also involved > > protecting Harry. And Snape teaching at Hogwarts keeps him near > > DD, so DD can both protect and keep an eye on him, and where > > Snape can also help protect Hogwarts and strategize with DD once > > Voldemort returned. > > Alla: > > Again, do we have a proof that Dumbledore saved Snape from Azkaban > only IF Snape agrees to something? I believe that it is more of > fandom creation which of course leads to Puppetmaster!Dumbledore, > which I am very doubtful of. JMO, of course. zgirnius: Julie has not outlined exactly what form she believes the deal might have taken...however, it would seem to me that unless something along the lines of an Unbreakable Vow was involved from the outset, Dumbledore's leverage over Snape would have been gone once the DE trials were over. So if Snape continued to act according to some deal he made with Dumbledore, it would at this point have been just keeping his end of the bargain. This changed in GoF, as at this point Snape has to go back to Voldemort or face assassination by the Death Eaters. So he would either need DD's help to hide, or would have to go back (as a spy, if he's still with the Good Guys). > > Julie: > > I was just point out that Snape being at Hogwarts all these years > > teaching, > > and later protecting Harry, may not--probably isn't--how he would > have > > chosen to spend his life, before he limited his choices with his > own > > regrettable actions (telling Voldemort about the prophecy). > > > Alla: > > Oh, but Snape made a choice - to join Voldemort, no? After he > renounced Voldemort, IF he truly did, he does not have much choice > left, IMO, IF he truly decided to behave as a decent person. Again, > IMO. > Alla: > > Well, yes, of course and that is what I had been saying. I am just > arguing that as part of his penance, Snape got off much easier than > he should have been, IMO. > zgirnius: OK, Alla is saying that Snape owes a debt to society. Julie is saying that Snape has been paying that debt by working for Dumbledore all these years. Alla points out that yes, that is true, but Azkaban, which he really deserves, is a much nastier fate. I agree with both, and I'll add a paraphrase of Snape himself...Snape recounting his memories of 16 years in Azkaban is far less useful to society than what Snape has actually been up to all these years (provided he *really did* turn on Voldemort, of course...) I also would like to point out that while Snape's actual life for the past 16 years does seem to beat Azkaban hands down, it did not have to be that way. If he had been discovered before Voldemort's fall, a long Azkaban sentence might have started to look good by comparison. He did not know which way it would work out when he made his decision. > > Julie: > > > But he doesn't have a duty to go *out of his way* > > to do so, as he did when he saved Harry from Quirrell in PS/SS. > > He didn't have to do that, as no one but himself seemed aware > > of Quirrell's plans. He could have let Harry die then and there, > and > > been done with him, done with everything, without any blame > > being placed on him. > Alla: > > I disagree that Snape went out of his way in PS/SS. I think that > being a former(?) DE, he recognised the dark curse faster than any > other teacher and reacted faster. But that is JMO of course. > zgirnius: I think Julie is trying here to point out that if Snape has come to consider his work with Dumbledore burdensome by PS/SS, he could have just done nothing to save Harry. Allowing Harry to be killed by Quirrell would be something he could "get away" with. Of course if we are supposing a truly remorseful Snape who wants to make up for his past crimes, this would not be something he could consider... From msbeadsley at yahoo.com Mon Sep 12 05:04:25 2005 From: msbeadsley at yahoo.com (msbeadsley) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 05:04:25 -0000 Subject: Snape's "saving" of Harry--was Re: Hard time for Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140019 > > Alla: > > > > I disagree that Snape went out of his way in PS/SS. I think that > > being a former(?) DE, he recognised the dark curse faster than any > > other teacher and reacted faster. But that is JMO of course. > zgirnius: > I think Julie is trying here to point out that if Snape has come to > consider his work with Dumbledore burdensome by PS/SS, he could have > just done nothing to save Harry. Allowing Harry to be killed by > Quirrell would be something he could "get away" with. Of course if > we are supposing a truly remorseful Snape who wants to make up for > his past crimes, this would not be something he could consider... Do we still think that Snape saved (or truly thought he was saving) Harry's life in PS/SS? Didn't Dumbledore slow Harry's fall from his broom in PoA? (So we know there's such a spell.) Actually, I have always had a very hard time believing that Hogwarts allows Quidditch matches with children as young as twelve (eleven in Harry's exceptional case) flying high in the sky without having a staff member (Madame Hooch, maybe--'though Neville did get thoroughly banged up under her tutelage in flying class) assigned to cast a "slow-fall" spell as needed. Then again, Quidditch *practice* apparently goes on without benefit of any sort of magical net. On yet another hand, there has also been discussion about how much tougher (or at least less concerned with physical damage) wizards seem than Muggles (as demonstrated by Neville's uncle's impulse to fling his nephew out the window and said nephew's subsequent bouncing), possibly due to how how magic seems able to mend things Muggle medics can't. In light of all this, I just don't place a very high value on Snape's countercurse anymore. So I'm long-windedly agreeing with Alla (Snape's actions were nothing very special), and adding: it no longer seems nearly as likely to me that the fall would have been fatal in lieu of Snape's intervention, anyway. JMO (ahem), Sandy aka msbeadsley From jmrazo at hotmail.com Mon Sep 12 05:14:38 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 05:14:38 -0000 Subject: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort (was: Re: Draco's culpability...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140020 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > I don't think he *does* get a pass from her (correct me if I'm > wrong, of course, Betsy). Her point isn't that working on the > cabinet has nothing to do with DD getting killed. What Betsy is > doing, from what I read in the thread, is not trying to absolve > Draco of responsibility that is obviously his, but focusing more > on the meaning the act in the context of his story and character. > The fact that he focuses on fixing the cabinet is very important > in terms of what's happening to him, because even though this is > part of the assassination attempt it still shows Draco trying to > avoid the actual murder he's supposed to commit, because he is > slowly learning what murder really is, and developing a horror > of it. The DEs are supposed to be there to give him alone a clear > shot at DD. Except he puts the Vanishing cabinet in motion long before he 'discovers what murder really is'. It's a part of his long term plot against Voldemort. His working on cabinet can't be a manifestation of any sort of reluctance to kill because when he walks into borgin's shop, he hasn't tried to kill anyone yet. phoenixgod2000 From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Mon Sep 12 05:57:10 2005 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 22:57:10 -0700 Subject: Horny Weasleys ;) (was:sex/etc.) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1334485647.20050911225710@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140021 Saturday, September 10, 2005, 9:42:23 PM, Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) wrote: CRPW> Maybe I just have a dirty mind -- when Molly in GoF reminisced of CRPW> being out to 4am on a date with Arthur in their school days, I felt CRPW> it was obvious how they had lost track of so much time... Well, if you have a "dirty mind", so do I, since I've thought the exact same thing... I've also assumed that Bill's "private lessons" with Fleur was a hint that they were "doin' it"... And it seems obvious to me that Harry's extreme gratitude that Ron was not a Legimens was because he was having wet dreams about Ginny. I think I'm skating on thin ice here, so I'd better stop. :) -- Dave P.S. Speaking of Weasley sex lives, whatever became of Penelope Clearwater? From juli17 at aol.com Mon Sep 12 06:18:50 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 06:18:50 -0000 Subject: Snape's "saving" of Harry--was Re: Hard time for Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140022 > > > zgirnius: > > I think Julie is trying here to point out that if Snape has come to > > consider his work with Dumbledore burdensome by PS/SS, he could > have > > just done nothing to save Harry. Allowing Harry to be killed by > > Quirrell would be something he could "get away" with. Of course if > > we are supposing a truly remorseful Snape who wants to make up for > > his past crimes, this would not be something he could consider... Julie says: That is what I meant. Snape could have allowed Harry to be killed by Quirrell. And that's not the opportunity Snape let pass. For instance he could also have delayed (for real) informing the Order about Harry being at the DoM, or even said nothing at all. Only Harry knows about the Padfoot clue he shouted to Snape, so Snape could have once again rid himself of Harry, and thus any related obligations, while feigning innocence. Sandy: > > Do we still think that Snape saved (or truly thought he was saving) > Harry's life in PS/SS? Didn't Dumbledore slow Harry's fall from his > broom in PoA? (So we know there's such a spell.) > > Actually, I have always had a very hard time believing that Hogwarts > allows Quidditch matches with children as young as twelve (eleven in > Harry's exceptional case) flying high in the sky without having a > staff member (Madame Hooch, maybe--'though Neville did get thoroughly > banged up under her tutelage in flying class) assigned to cast a > "slow-fall" spell as needed. Then again, Quidditch *practice* > apparently goes on without benefit of any sort of magical net. > > On yet another hand, there has also been discussion about how much > tougher (or at least less concerned with physical damage) wizards seem > than Muggles (as demonstrated by Neville's uncle's impulse to fling > his nephew out the window and said nephew's subsequent bouncing), > possibly due to how how magic seems able to mend things Muggle medics > can't. In light of all this, I just don't place a very high value on > Snape's countercurse anymore. So I'm long-windedly agreeing with Alla > (Snape's actions were nothing very special), and adding: it no longer > seems nearly as likely to me that the fall would have been fatal in > lieu of Snape's intervention, anyway. > > JMO (ahem), > Sandy aka msbeadsley Julie says: I don't know how much jeopardy Harry was actually in, but if I have to make a guess, I'd go with what's implied in the books. Hermoine certainly seemed to think Harry's life was in danger, and Quirrell seemed to believe he could kill Harry by knocking him off the broom. In any case, Snape didn't have to interfere at all. But he did, whether it saved Harry from death or merely a serious but fixable injury. And this is my biggest problem with ESE!Snape. Why has he bothered to hide his *true* colors so many times when it wasn't necessary at all? Why help Harry in SS/PS, or in OotP, when he could have sat back and let events take their course? And why take Sirius and Harry back to Hogwarts on stretchers in POA? He could have just left them there, or- -especially in the case of his hated enemy Sirius--delivered a quick, fatal spell and been done with it. I'm sure he's a gifted enough wizard to do it and leave no one the wiser. Why not get rid of Dumbledore at the beginning of HPB, when DD is completely at his mercy from the ring horcrux curse? Even the smaller things he does seem suspect. Why not give Umbridge the veritaserum to use on Harry? Why not inflict a curse on that insufferable know-it-all Hermoine on his way to the Tower? Why not crucio Harry a bit, or allow the other DEs to have a bit of fun? Why does he keep doing these "right" things, and avoid doing the "easy" (and presumably more satisfying) things? Especially when no one is watching and he's free to fully indulge his evil nature, or once he's revealed himself as ESE and killed Dumbledore? Could it be because he *is* remorseful about his past crimes, because he does have his own internal moral code--flawed though it may be--and because he is determined to carry through with whatever promise he made to DD and/or himself and thus earn his redemption? Maybe, maybe not, but to me it still makes more sense than ESE!Snape, playing along until he gets his opportunity, yet too stupid to see the dozen opportunities that have stared him in the face. Julie From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 12 06:24:45 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 06:24:45 -0000 Subject: Horny Weasleys ;) (was:sex/etc.). In-Reply-To: <1334485647.20050911225710@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140023 I too wondered what Author and Molly were doing at 4 am, and I wondered what Bill and Fleur were really doing in there "English Lessons". I don't think Hogwarts is quite as chaste a place as some think. It's interesting that as Harry's girlfriend people took it as a given that Ginny knew if he had a tattoo on his naked chest or not. Eggplant From bobjawetz at yahoo.com Mon Sep 12 03:13:12 2005 From: bobjawetz at yahoo.com (bobjawetz) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 03:13:12 -0000 Subject: sirius black Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140024 I have a question regarding Black's initial return in Book 3. In the conclusion of chap. 17-18 Black supposedly escaped from Azkaban to kill Peter Pettigrew, not Harry. However, at the beginning of the scene in the "Shrieking Shack" Black does appear to try to kill Harry-- see page 340. Why is this? Sheryl Jawetz From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Sep 12 06:47:06 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 06:47:06 -0000 Subject: Thin air/Choices Was re:sex/VanishingCabinet/SoulsEtc/Badger/Ch.2/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140025 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "saraquel_omphale" wrote: Saraquel: > As to whether Voldemort had a "choice WRT his choice", I think > because, in the past, he chose to effectively, systematically, > eliminate his range of choices by requiring of himself that there > was only one way the world could be seen, his present is in a sense > pre-determined by himself. Something along the lines of: > > 1 Voldemort decides the world should be black and white (a choice). > > 2 Voldemort consistently interprets everything in terms of black > and white (the implementation of the choice). > > 3 For Voldemort the world *is* now black and white. (the result of > the consistently applying 2) > > 4 Voldemort now has effectively no choice but to see the world as > black and white. (he has effectively predetermined his present > choices by his past choice) Geoff: Yet again, this reminds me of the Dwarves in the last of CS Lewis' Narnia books, "The Last Battle". The Dwarves consistently refuse to take sides, their mantra is "the Dwarves are for the Dwarves" and they will not believe in the existence of Aslan. When Narnia is brought to an end and they go through the stable door into heaven, all the Dwarves who have joined this group are literally unable to see all the beauty around them; if they are offered food they can only see dirty water and mouldy food. They cannot see the wide, rolling country but only the inside of a dark, dirty stable. Aslan says to the children: "You see, they will not let us help them. They have chosen cunning instead of belief. Their prison is in their own minds, yet they are in that prison; and are so afraid of being taken in that they canont be taken out." (Last Battle "How the Dwarves refused to be taken in") This echoes the picture of the corner into which Voldemort has painted himself. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Sep 12 07:44:26 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 07:44:26 -0000 Subject: Clue on timing of Felix felicis potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140026 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Auria" wrote: > ... So that means the Felix felicis potion could not have been > made by Slughorn within this time, as it is less than a 6 month > period. > > This leads to a couple of possible conclusions: > 1. Maybe the Felix felicis was already being brewed by someone else > at Hogwarts for another purpose. ... > > 2. The potion could have been prepared by Snape. ... > > Whatever the reason, I feel this inconsistency in timing for brewing > the potion could be a deliberate clue by JK Rowling. Something > seemingly insignificant, and just 'dropped' into the text, but turns > out to mean a lot. > > anyone have any comments? > Auria bboyminn: Sorry for the short post, but has it occurred to anyone that Slughorn may have bought or borrowed the potions? Perhaps from a friend who is an avid potions maker or from a store that sells ready-made potions? Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Sep 12 07:54:26 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 07:54:26 -0000 Subject: That darn Prophecy again.. Re: Thin air/Choices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140027 It seems to me that Saraquel, Ceridwen and I have set ourselves to the insurmountable. In trying to extrapolate a canon definition of life and death in Potterverse I feel that I have mostly only managed to unroll the tape from a stack of so many cassettes that I sit in a room completely filled with unravelled twisted lengths of film, not at all sure what next to do with them. So I have decided to close the door on that room for now and start again in a fresh space. >From scratch, lets recompile the unanswered questions: 1. Is an Horcrux an intrinsic part of Voldemorts life and death? Or is it a separate and distinct object once removed from the original body, and therefore unrelated to the actual death of Voldemort. Many have answered simply "Yes" to the latter, and I cannot deny that there is little, if any, canon rebuttal for that. It certainly appears to be exactly as it happens in the canon. The Horcrux container is destroyed, and along with it, the piece of soul. I appears to have been done by the hands of Dumbledore and Harry. Dumbledore is left with a "dead" hand, and Harry survives his encounter relatively unscathed. It would be easy to just cut the cake neatly this way and be satisfied with a few crumbs on the table. And I encourage anyone who is able, to do just that, for otherwise the whole thing is quite a headache. 2. Do the Horcruxes figure in the prophecy? > houyhnhnm quoted: > >"If Voldemort had never heard of the prophecy, would it have been > >fulfilled? Would it have meant anything? Of course not. Do you > >think every prophecy in the Hall of Prophecy has been fulfilled?" > > FFred > > I suspect that had I been Harry, I'd have replied > > "Yes, Headmaster, I rather thought that that was inherent in the > > definition of the word prophecy. > Allie: > I was also. All that drama surrounding Harry's divination exam in > PoA and Trelawney going into a trance to deliver... something that > might not even happen???? I took it as a given that all the > prophecies were things that would actually come to pass. Valky: I think, that this is a deliberate narrative nudge leading us to look away from the prophecy. But despite Dumbledore advising Harry not to put a whole lot of 'stock' in it's fulfillment I find it hard to believe that he kept it from Harry, and in his penseive, those many years without having taken it somewhat more seriously than that. Over all, I conclude that we have been guided away from interpreting the prophecy by the hand of HBP narrative. But I am stubborn. Thanks to all too many (misspent )years of sleuthing the HP series I refuse to go along with the narrative director. The Prophecy IMHO is exactly where I think we should look. I think Ffred's coment is exactly the point, it's inherent nature is that it will be fulfilled. This is, for me, where the fun begins. And looking at the prophecy upon the revelation of Voldemorts seven pieces of soul presents an intriguing puzzle, the kind that would be worth waiting a decade for. Alas I am helpless against the power of an ingenius riddle-me-this. And so in I plunge. Either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives, this intrigues me so lately. The HBP revelation for me was that Voldie himself has strewn his will across the countryside. Between his DADA curse and his Horcruxes, Voldie no longer has a will of his own, or control over even his own choices anymore. His Diary Horcrux virtually ressurrected an alternate autonomous Dark Lord that never really had to obey or agree with the first. They represent a divided will in Voldemort each fully able to act upon its own countenance, and if it suited one to kill the other, then frankly who could put it past Voldemort? The DADA curse itself is the most remarkable example. In the very first book Voldemort all but killed himself with it. What is revealed in HBP is that Quirrel's demise was Voldemorts own doing no less than the demise of any teacher who held that cursed position in Hogwarts. And something so uncanny also appears.. Could Harry live if Quirrel survived? Could Voldemort live if Harry survived? The answer is clearly no, isn't it. But it is not Harry's hand that brought this demise upon Quirrel in the end.. Over and over we are told that Voldemort's hand lay behind it all. Voldemort gave Harry the tools to do this, Voldemort created the DADA curse. The Chamber of Secrets is the same, Voldemort gave Harry the ability to speak Parseltongue, Voldemort makes him refuse Slytherin and cling to his Gryffindor nature... Voldemort, Voldemort, Voldemort.. Either of two, it seems to me, is becoming ridiculously obviously *not* Voldemort and Harry, but Voldemort and Voldemort. Am I making sense now? Valky From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Sep 12 09:31:24 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 09:31:24 -0000 Subject: Clue on timing of Felix felicis potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140029 Lady Indigo: > > He could have brewed it before he started sneaking around, couldn't > he? The > > amount of times and the timing of when he's taken Felix Felicis shows > that > > he's been brewing it for quite a while. He's probably got quite a > stockpile. Finwitch: As I see it-- he did have a stockpile. Remember, he tells the students he's taken it *twice* in his life. two spoonfuls twice? I'd say he had loads of the potion left... and still does. Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Sep 12 10:02:40 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 10:02:40 -0000 Subject: Hard time for Snape?(was Re: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort) In-Reply-To: <000601c5b6f9$2e459070$6524f204@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140030 > Sherry: --dear sevvy > didn't have to spend all those years before Voldemort's return fooling > Dumbledore. -- Many Good Snape theorists have said it would be harder for Snape to > fool Dumbledore for 16 years, and that he only had to fool Voldemort for a > few years. But it is really true, that he only had to fooled Dumbledore > once when he returned to him with his supposed remorse, and then only for > the two years since Voldemort's return. Not all that difficult for a good > spy and someone skilled at occlumency. Finwitch: Yes - Snape's certainly able to. And I'll also answer to those who wonder why he does all these things when no one's watching... For the same reason Fake!Moody was, alone in his office with Harry... it's a very simple rule any successful spy follows: Always keep your cover, even when it appears you're not being watched. Snape's just smart enough to do so - in this magical world of animaguses, Polyjuice Potions, invisibility, ghosts, talking portraits and whatnot - it's particularly important that the spy keeps his cover. Transferring Harry&co. on scretches? He was being watched by TT!Harry, was he not? How many others *could* have been watching? Something like a beatle-animagus? And how would Dumbledore react if the only survivor was Snape? Snape can tell Voldemort he had to do that to keep Dumbledore's trust so he would be more *useful* to him as a spy... which was his only excuse for not attempting to find Voldemort like the Lestranges... Snape would not be good at playing the Double-agent if he was so careless as to drop his cover just because he thought he wasn't being watched... No one knows which side he's on, possibly not even Snape himself. Finwitch From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Sep 12 10:12:58 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 10:12:58 -0000 Subject: That darn Prophecy again.. Re: Thin air/Choices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140031 > Valky: > > The DADA curse itself is the most remarkable example. In the very > first book Voldemort all but killed himself with it. a_svirn: Not necessarily. Voldemort intended Quirrel to die from the start. He told his Death Eaters that his possession of the bodies of others shorten their lives. As soon as he would obtain a brand-new body for himself Quirrel would have died anyway. > Valky: Could Harry live if Quirrel > survived? a_svirn: If he survived as "Quirrel" why not? > Valky: Could Voldemort live if Harry survived? The answer is > clearly no, isn't it. But it is not Harry's hand that brought this > demise upon Quirrel in the end.. Over and over we are told that > Voldemort's hand lay behind it all. a_svirn: Yes, and that's exactly JKR's point, isn't it? > Valky: The Chamber of Secrets is > the same, Voldemort gave Harry the ability to speak Parseltongue, > Voldemort makes him refuse Slytherin and cling to his Gryffindor > nature... a_svirn: ??! I think you give Voldemort too much credit with this one. From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Mon Sep 12 10:30:19 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 10:30:19 -0000 Subject: That darn Prophecy again.. Re: Thin air/Choices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140032 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > > Either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while > the other survives, this intrigues me so lately. > Either of two, it seems to me, is becoming ridiculously obviously > *not* Voldemort and Harry, but Voldemort and Voldemort. > > Am I making sense now? I think you are saying that, in the end, it is one of Voldemort's own Horcruxes that will be his undoing. From my POV, I have long wondered if the correct interpretation of the line above i.e. 'neither can live while the other survives' was that either BOTH are alive or BOTH are dead. I had always thought of this as reference to Harry & Voldemort, but it would certainly make more sense with your argument! However, I still feel that JKR makes far too much reference to the power that Harry possesses and Voldemort fails to understand! Therefore it still seems most likely that this will be Voldemort's undoing, rather that anything of his own making. Brothergib From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Sep 12 10:40:00 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 10:40:00 -0000 Subject: Thin air/Choices Was re:sex/VanishingCabinet/SoulsEtc/Badger/Ch.2/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140033 > > >Ffred wrote: > >I suspect that had I been Harry, I'd have replied > >"Yes, Headmaster, I rather thought that that was inherent in the > >definition of the word prophecy. --- > > Saraquel: --> > I think that DD exhorts the whole school to beware of what comes > naturally and engage reason, in his, "choose what is right over what > is easy." Finwitch: Well - I like that piece of what Ffred said - it's a prophecy if it WILL happen anyway. Otherwise it's no different from prediction which is, of course, quite different. Remember when Dumbledore asks Harry that if he had never heard of prophecy, would he *still* do what he can to defeat Voldemort - and Harry says he would. I don't think Dumbledore means to undermine the prophecy. He just wants to make it clear that Harry shouldn't be choosing whether or not he's *following* a prophecy, but what it is he'd do if the prophecy did't exist. Does anyone think that Voldemort needed a *reason* to kill James&Lily? Or that he wouldn't of killed this couple who had *thrice defied him* given half the chance? The few lines from the prophecy merely got him to prioritise the killing of the Potters... BTW, I find it possible that Voldemort intended to kill both prophecy boys... both were hidden under Fidelius Charm -- He killed Potters first because the rat told him where to find them. He couldn't find the Longbottoms. Who was their SK? Frank's mother? Finwitch From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Sep 12 11:10:31 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 11:10:31 -0000 Subject: That darn Prophecy again.. Re: Thin air/Choices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140034 Brothergib: > However, I still feel that JKR makes far too much reference to the > power that Harry possesses and Voldemort fails to understand! > Therefore it still seems most likely that this will be Voldemort's > undoing, rather that anything of his own making. Valky: >Dumbledore is left with a "dead" hand, and Harry survives his >encounter relatively unscathed. Ceridwen: All right, so what if the 'Power the Dark Lord Knows Not' hasn't been revealed yet in its proper setting? *And* pointed out, that is. Someone else suggested that Harry is apparently better suited to dispatching the horcruxes, since he didn't suffer the same sort of fate Dumbledore did. So, the 'Power...' resides in Harry alone, he is the only one who can do the job properly. If this is the Power of Love, it must be a very special sort of love. Lily's blood protection coming into play? But, what about once Harry turns seventeen and it no longer applies? This is where I would, regretfully, slip into thinking Harry is a horcrux, or else his scar. Yes, the scar, given the choice. Voldemort kills what he inhabits. If Vapour!Mort was soul or bits of soul, then this all fits together. Quirrel drinking unicorn blood, which kept him alive in at least a half-state, for instance. I had thought that the drinking was done on Voldemort's behalf until this discussion. Now, I'm not so sure. That was book 1, LV's explanation of his vaporous existence didn't come until book 4, where he revealed that he killed the beasts he inhabited. I didn't make the connection between the animals he says he inhabited and ultimately killed, and Quirrel. Humans are animals, too. I'm open to the idea that there is something other than a horcrux sort of soul-piece that can be given by Voldemort, which can shield Harry from the sort of destruction Dumbledore suffered. If not a soul-piece, then something that the soul fragment within the horcrux, can recognize. I do think that a horcrux can be made accidentally, and observation of such phenomena is what led to the more exacting rituals to make a horcrux proper. If such a phenomenon exists in Wizarding Nature, then perhaps it isn't as strong, nor as efficient, as the ritualized way. Maybe it cuts, and leaves the soul-fragment embedded in the outer skin, rather than deep inside. With only what we have to go on, we can't say. We can guess, but we'll never get over any disagreements until the whole thing is either addressed, or shown to be yet another foray into the brush. So, somehow, IMO, Voldemort transferred some bit of himself to Harry. Harry did get some abilities, or at least the one, Parseltongue. I'm guessing that went in through the scar as it was ripped open. Even the shape of the scar leads to a magical transferrence of some sort. Bolts and jets of light coming from wands, lightning bolt, all the same to me. Some spell, and not the AK, tore that scar into Harry. The AK killed his mother and Voldemort... Hm. Thinking on the keys here, everyone says the spell rebounded to kill Voldemort as a physical entity. And that Lily's protection resides in Harry's blood. Parseltongue and protection both entering through the scar, I'm guessing. That room must have been rife with ricocheting spells, and not all of them intentional, as Lily died and Voldemort vaporized. And, what did happen to the piece of soul that tore when James was killed? Did it stay tenuously latched onto what was left? Still, if this was accidental, a phenomenon of Nature rather than of will, it would be different than deliberately creating a horcrux, or even deliberate possession. Either is some form of possession, and would have killed Baby!Harry before long, if the soul-piece was embedded inside of him. That's why, if Harry is any sort of horcrux, the soul-piece would be in his scar. The scar is on the outer skin, not properly inside. A liminal or barrier point, the point where sea meets land and day turns to night. Harry addressing a deliberate horcrux would have the protection of a bit of Voldemort on his skin, denying entrance to the soul fragment in the horcrux, or at least tempering it to be more readily accepted, or even taking it into the outer skin instead of into the body at some cell or molecule level. A 'power the Dark Lord knows not'. Yet, one which makes Harry equal to him in the treatment of LV's horcruxes. Because I don't think Voldemort would be damaged by retrieving a piece of his own soul from a horcrux, as Dumbledore was. The soul- piece would recognize him as its owner. And, it seems, it would recognize, on some deep inner level, Harry as the same. Even though its consciousness, as TR in CoS for an example, found out about Harry and knew that he wasn't the one who should be retrieving/releasing him. That soul-piece couldn't harm Harry the way Dumbledore was harmed. Because of *whatever it is* in the scar that identifies Harry with Voldemort. Valky: >Am I making sense now? About as much as I am! Oy! Ceridwen. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Sep 12 11:14:11 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 11:14:11 -0000 Subject: That darn Prophecy again.. Re: Thin air/Choices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140035 > Valky: > > The DADA curse itself is the most remarkable example. In the very > first book Voldemort all but killed himself with it. a_svirn: Not necessarily. Voldemort intended Quirrel to die from the start. He told his Death Eaters that his possession of the bodies of others shorten their lives. As soon as he would obtain a brand-new body for himself Quirrel would have died anyway. Valky: Yes I agree a_svirn, no question. Voldemort would have used Quirrel up, drained him and left him for dead in any case. So that's not essentially my point in saying this. The notion I am flagging is not that Voldemorts curse almost killed him, although I know that's what I said, I only really meant it to illustrate the fact that Voldemorts two wills here - his past wills (Killing Harry - the DADA curse) and his present will (getting the stone - using Quirrel) end up clashing with each other in the middle, and despite that both wills work for Voldemort originally, in the end they work against each other. > Valky: Could Harry live if Quirrel > survived? a_svirn: If he survived as "Quirrel" why not? Valky: Yes I see your point, which is why I feel tht this particular line of the prophecy is always the culmination of Voldemorts two wills when they meet. Neither can live while the other survives. I am suggesting that when Voldies will from one corner of the WW meets Voldies will from the other corner, neither can live while the other survives. So essentially what I am saying is as a representative of Voldemorts will Quirrel could not live while Harry (in many ways being another representative of the will of Voldemort) survived. > Valky: > Could Voldemort live if Harry survived? The answer is > clearly no, isn't it. But it is not Harry's hand that brought this > demise upon Quirrel in the end.. Over and over we are told that > Voldemort's hand lay behind it all. a_svirn: Yes, and that's exactly JKR's point, isn't it? Valky: Are you agreeing with my interpretation here a_svirn? I am not sure I understand what you mean by that. > Valky: > The Chamber of Secrets is > the same, Voldemort gave Harry the ability to speak Parseltongue, > Voldemort makes him refuse Slytherin and cling to his Gryffindor > nature... a_svirn: ??! I think you give Voldemort too much credit with this one. Valky: Yes I do, you're right. Because in the end it is a gut instinct in Harry that causes him to know he should stab the diary with a Basilisk Fang. But we are still not told where that instinct comes from, so I am, I guess, submitting that its Voldie again. He's doing it to himself. > Valky: > Either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while > the other survives, this intrigues me so lately. > Either of two, > it seems to me, is becoming ridiculously obviously > *not* Voldemort and Harry, but Voldemort and Voldemort. > > Am I making sense now? Brothergib: I think you are saying that, in the end, it is one of Voldemort's own Horcruxes that will be his undoing. Valky: In a way yes. I actually think that Voldemorts hand will be behind each and every one of his undoings. The force of two of his separate wills will battle each other for survival and in every case it will be Voldemort against Voldemort, neither will live if the other survives. Only Voldemort is this absolute about his survival. Brothergib: >From my POV, I have long wondered if the correct interpretation of the line above i.e. 'neither can live while the other survives' was that either BOTH are alive or BOTH are dead. I had always thought of this as reference to Harry & Voldemort, but it would certainly make more sense with your argument! Valky: Thankyou Brothergib, yes I think Harry will not have to murder anyone if it happens this way, which I will like immensely. :D Brothergib: However, I still feel that JKR makes far too much reference to the power that Harry possesses and Voldemort fails to understand! Therefore it still seems most likely that this will be Voldemort's undoing, rather that anything of his own making. Valky: Yes the power the Dark Lord knows not. I am still considering how this could be important. Since we are told that it is precisely Harry's ability to love, something about that in particualr has figured in every one of Harry's triumphs over Voldemort. Either I'm not seeing it yet, or I'm on the wrong track. Looking at the two cases again, we know that when Harry faced Quirrel under the trapdor, he very nearly died with the effort he exerted. Dumbledore doesn't really elaborate much on what Harry's effort, personally, was being put into. But we get clues from Harry's thoughts, that he was just protecting the stone from Voldemort, he was trying to save everybody. In that, I guess Harry was giving out a lot of liove of his own, not just the love in his skin from his mother but also his love, was crucial to the battle. In the second case, the Chamber of Secrets it's Harry love that keeps him alive. The healing tears that Fawkes gave him were a treasure of great imortance, if he didn't have that initial power to love then he most likely would lay dead in the Chamber f Secrets, so there again I see that Harry's ability to love makes a said, *enormous*, difference, but it is still Voldemorts own hand that kills Voldemort, I think, when all is said and done. Just that Harry could not hold steady Voldemorts hand while he does it without his enormous capacity for love. I wonder if I am actually on to something there? ;D Valky From vmonte at yahoo.com Mon Sep 12 12:03:52 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 12:03:52 -0000 Subject: That darn Prophecy again.. Re: Thin air/Choices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140037 vmonte: I've always hated that prophecy and ever since Harry heard I thought: Voldemort would have done better for himself if he had not paid attention to it. Voldemort would have conquered the WW by now if it wasn't for that prophecy. I can understand why Dumbledore was going to remove this subject at the school--because it's a complete waste of time! I could see teaching the students to look for signs by interpreting events and people, looking for patterns in behavior, and teaching the children to think critically--like a strategist would. How useful is a prophecy that no one can interpret properly? How about Firenze? He sees bad things coming?! No, really? Besides, JKR can't give us a character that's going to tell use (in plain English) what is going to happen, or else Trelawny would have predicted that: Harry would date Ginny Hermione and Ron would get together Sirius Black was going to die A bit of Voldemort is inside Harry (and there is so much more) Everything I mentioned above was spotted by the careful reader of the Harry Potter books as things that would eventually happen. Are we Seers? No, we just saw the signs. Vivian From dc.thorburn at ntlworld.com Mon Sep 12 12:42:25 2005 From: dc.thorburn at ntlworld.com (Derek Thorburn) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 13:42:25 +0100 Subject: who bought the Peruvian instant darkness powder Message-ID: <000701c5b797$6f001bf0$3e781652@thorburn> No: HPFGUIDX 140038 One thing I've been wondering is who bought the Peruvian instant darkness powder from Fred and George's shop. I've been wondering whether or not there could have either been a death eater on the scene at the time Fred and George were explaining to Harry its use, or whether it was someone else who had taken polly juice potion and was masquerading as another person. Somehow, I don't think Malfoy would have gone into the shop, since he thinks of the Weesley family as riff raff. Perhaps in book 7, Ron will speak to the twins and find out who bought it. Derek From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 12 07:21:36 2005 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 03:21:36 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Apologies and responsibility In-Reply-To: <63378ee705083113595efeb146@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140039 Lady Indigo said: And you know, I think I'd gladly even let it be reduced to this. While "My father acted like a bully" is a simple fact Harry and Snape can agree on, I admit it's loaded and most people can't detach themselves enough to discuss it without that weight. What everyone seems to miss is the other half of that, which I don't think Harry should ever leave out: "You had problems with my dad. I am not my dad." This calls Snape out for his own immaturity, it puts things into the open air instead of letting them stew, and I think it's one of the biggest reasons I'm at all bothered by Harry's part in this. Harry coming of age means Harry beginning to handle things the way that adults would. PJ answers with: I don't see how anyone could realistically expect this from Harry knowing his story. Kids who have lost a parent at such a young age would tend to, over the years, make that parent larger than life in his/her own mind. Aunt Petunia and Uncle Vernon never bothered to give him a _realistic_ picture of who they were so by now it doesn't matter if they were saints or sinners in life because in death they can leap tall buildings in a single bound... Superman, Captain Marvel and the Pope all wrapped up into one neat package. In this case it's Harry's Dad that he's built up in his own mind to be THE hero. He has no real memories of either parent but people in the WW tend to talk to him quite a bit about James and tell stories about how smart, witty, talented and wonderful he was (It's especially nice since they say Harry's just like him!). This only serves to add fuel to the Dad as Superman myth Harry has set up for himself until Snape's worst memory rocks his world. He may have apologised for looking into the penseive if he'd been given the chance but admitting his parents were less than perfect, especially to the "enemy", would be unthinkable. Just my opinion. PJ From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Mon Sep 12 15:22:17 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 08:22:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] sirius black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050912152217.72250.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140040 bobjawetz wrote: I have a question regarding Black's initial return in Book 3. In the conclusion of chap. 17-18 Black supposedly escaped from Azkaban to kill Peter Pettigrew, not Harry. However, at the beginning of the scene in the "Shrieking Shack" Black does appear to try to kill Harry--see page 340. Why is this? Juli: Actually Sirius is keeping Harry from killing him. Harry wants to kill Sirius, and Sirius of course defends himself, he's not stupid! Juli Aol: jlnbtr Yahoo: jlnbtr __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Sep 12 15:27:27 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:27:27 -0000 Subject: That darn Prophecy again.. Re: Thin air/Choices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140041 Cerwidwen: > This is where I would, regretfully, slip into thinking Harry is a > horcrux, or else his scar. Yes, the scar, given the choice. > Voldemort kills what he inhabits. If Vapour!Mort was soul or bits > of soul, then this all fits together. Jen: You and me both, the 'regretfully' part :). As much as I personally dislike the idea, the evidence keeps stacking up. Every argument I think of has a counter-argument. Like for instance, Dumbledore should have known. Well yes, he should have, but now we know he makes huge mistakes and what would be bigger than not recognizing Harry's scar might be a Horcrux? Being wrong about Snape would pale in comparison, and besides, the hero can't have everything handed to him on a silver platter; Harry is expected to figure out a few things on his own. After OOTP, Dumbledore would not allow his personal feelings and wishes for Harry cloud his judgement again. If he saw the possibility of a Horcrux in Harry, he would have said something. So he didn't. JKR has set up the perfect position here. If Harry, or his scar, is somehow a Horcrux, she can explain why very easily since we know nothing about the process of making one. If she wants to continue with the storyline that the rebounded AK, never seen before in the WW, passed those powers to Harry and it has nothing to do with a Horcrux, well she can go that route as well. (Having said all that, I do have two little pieces of evidence that may support the idea Harry is not a Horcrux. Maybe. They come up at the end of this post). Cerwidwen: > I'm open to the idea that there is something other than a horcrux > sort of soul-piece that can be given by Voldemort, which can > shield Harry from the sort of destruction Dumbledore suffered. If > not a soul-piece, then something that the soul fragment within the > horcrux, can recognize. I do think that a horcrux can be made > accidentally, and observation of such phenomena is what led to the > more exacting rituals to make a horcrux proper. If such a > phenomenon exists in Wizarding Nature, then perhaps it isn't as > strong, nor as efficient, as the ritualized way. Jen: It's hard to believe DD or even Slughorn wouldn't know about accidental Horcruxes if they exist, especially if there's a history of one being wedged in the skin (I'm extrapolating on your point here). Or Voldemort! Even Ollivander might be suspicious of the scar he's inspecting if there's any history at all of an accidental Horcrux. I think this would have to be a never-before-seen phenomenon like the rebounded AK. (I'm not trying to discount what you're saying here either, because it does seem logical that the first person who discovered a Horcrux must have done so accidentally. I'm just saying it's hard to believe DD esp. wouldn't pick up on the connection between the scar and Horcrux making if there were any evidence of this happening before). Ceridwen: > Still, if this was accidental, a phenomenon of Nature rather than > of will, it would be different than deliberately creating a > horcrux, or even deliberate possession. Either is some form of > possession, and would have killed Baby!Harry before long, if the > soul-piece was embedded inside of him. That's why, if Harry is > any sort of horcrux, the soul-piece would be in his scar. Jen: From what we know of possession, I agree it's really unlikely the soul piece would be inside without any negative effects. Of course, JKR has a perfect out again---Lily's love protection has kept the soul piece from possessing Harry! Ceridwen: > Harry addressing a deliberate horcrux would have the protection of > a bit of Voldemort on his skin, denying entrance to the soul > fragment in the horcrux, or at least tempering it to be more > readily accepted, or even taking it into the outer skin instead of > into the body at some cell or molecule level. A 'power the Dark > Lord knows not'. Yet, one which makes Harry equal to him in the > treatment of LV's horcruxes. Jen: This is such a compelling argument, but also the point where things break down for me re: Harrycrux. The idea of the face-value reading keeps coming up, and I do think JKR really means for the power the Dark Lord knows not to be love. In HBP, JKR makes it clear how utterly special Harry is because of the many ways he's been touched by evil and never succumbed to the temptation of the dark side. His soul is pure. He's even been given gifts a DE 'would kill for' and it changes him not at all. Now it's possible she could take this idea even further--"he's been touched by the most evil of all and is/has a Horcrux within him now and his soul is still untarnished," but that stretches her theme to the thinnest of limits--what, is Harry *perfect*, that he can even be untouched by a Horcrux? If so, Harry is becoming a product of all that's happening around him rather than a person in his own right. He's a product of Lily's sacrifice, Voldemort's evil deposit, and Dumbledore's Plan. There's not much of Harry left in there anymore. He's a kid who can play Quidditch and is exceptional at DADA--and even that last part might be a gift from Lily or unintended consequence of Voldemort's transfer of powers. Ceridwen: > Because I don't think Voldemort would be damaged by retrieving a > piece of his own soul from a horcrux, as Dumbledore was. The soul- > piece would recognize him as its owner. And, it seems, it would > recognize, on some deep inner level, Harry as the same. Even > though its consciousness, as TR in CoS for an example, found out > about Harry and knew that he wasn't the one who should be > retrieving/releasing him. That soul-piece couldn't harm Harry the > way Dumbledore was harmed. Because of *whatever it is* in the > scar that identifies Harry with Voldemort. Jen: Ok, my two little pieces of evidence. Actually three. 1) Even though I personally love the idea Harry is gifted in destroying the Horcruxes in a way DD is not, the diary did not have any curses upon it the way the ring did. So we can't know that for sure yet. 2) Harry did not feel any affinity at all for the locket at 12 GP, if indeed it is a Horcrux, nor could he open it, same as the others present. 3) In the cave, DD said: "I think we must resign ourselves to the fact that they [Inferi] will, at some point, realize we're not Lord Voldemort." (chap. 26, p. 564) And they do!! I know this is pitiful little evidence, but I think if Harry is somehow recognized to have part of Voldemort in him, the Inferi would not bother him. Jen, possibly grasping at straws From sherriola at earthlink.net Mon Sep 12 15:36:14 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 08:36:14 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] sirius black In-Reply-To: <20050912152217.72250.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <006301c5b7af$b6e99b90$be24f204@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 140042 bobjawetz wrote: I have a question regarding Black's initial return in Book 3. In the conclusion of chap. 17-18 Black supposedly escaped from Azkaban to kill Peter Pettigrew, not Harry. However, at the beginning of the scene in the "Shrieking Shack" Black does appear to try to kill Harry--see page 340. Why is this? Juli: Actually Sirius is keeping Harry from killing him. Harry wants to kill Sirius, and Sirius of course defends himself, he's not stupid! Juli Aol: jlnbtr Yahoo: jlnbtr Sherry adds: I also think the scene is in there for great dramatic effect. to make it more of a shock, when we find out Sirius is not the bad guy. But yeah, he's trying to keep Harry from killing him before he can explain. sherry From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Sep 12 14:02:41 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:02:41 -0000 Subject: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort (was: Re: Draco's culpability...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140043 > phoenixgod2000: > > Except he puts the Vanishing cabinet in motion long before > he 'discovers what murder really is'. It's a part of his long term > plot against Voldemort. His working on cabinet can't be a > manifestation of any sort of reluctance to kill because when he walks > into borgin's shop, he hasn't tried to kill anyone yet. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that he hadn't put it into motion long before then. I did know that. I don't see how it makes a difference, though. The vanishing cabinet plot is part of the assasination attempt (as has always been agreed), but it's not part of the actual murder. The DEs are there to provide him backup, give him a chance to then perform the murder, give him his clear shot. When they get him the chance, he still has to do the act on his own. They give him the chance and he doesn't take it. -m From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Mon Sep 12 15:53:43 2005 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:53:43 -0000 Subject: Thin air/Choices Was re:sex/VanishingCabinet/SoulsEtc/Badger/Ch.2/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140044 --- Nora (referring to free will question): > > In the Potterverse, I don't think so. That's a > > very existentialist perspective, and would be > > demonstrated through a statement such as our choices > > making us who we are. But once you say 'show' instead > > of 'make' (as Dumbledore does), the emphasis is put > > onto illustration of qualities, carrying out actions > > which correspond to qualities--not making those > > qualities in oneself. Essentialism. > > > > One gets the impression that Rowling thinks of her > > characters with very well-defined character, strong > > personality traits and qualities at the bottom which > > their actions stem from. That's not to say that change > > is impossible--but she clearly has a strong idea of > > innate abilities, particularly illustrated if you > > look at her comments on Neville as opposed to Harry. --houyhnhnm: > I think you are right about the quote from CoS. And the > behavior of the characters seldom deviates from the > pattern that has been established for them. > > The following passage has me still thinking of Dumbledore > as something of an existentialist, though. > > [snip passage about indeterminacy of prophecy.] I agree with those who read the constant rhetorical emphasis in the books on choices as an indication that Rowling (like her proxy, Dumbledore) views those choices as the essence or building blocks of character, not as merely revealing character. The word "show" in the quote from COS can be reconciled with the choice-centered view -- it could simply be poetic; but I don't see how Dumbledore's constant focus on choice and persuasion could be reconciled with a view in which people possess a static character and their choices are more or less preordained. More of my thoughts on this subject are at #138532 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/138532). I am surprised that no one has brought up in this connection the interaction between Dumbledore and Draco on the tower. Once again, Dumbledore's language in that scene could be read as an affirmation of the theory that Draco's choices simply prove who he is. But Dumbledore's *actions* -- engaging in a lengthy dialogue to try to persuade Draco to step back from the brink -- strongly suggest that he thinks Draco's decision is very much in doubt. Dumbledore is teaching here, just as he is in the scene at the end of GF, when he exhorts the students to choose what is right, not what is easy. And ultimately I don't think Dumbledore would have chosen the career that he did if he did not believe his charges could be taught, on a moral level as well as a practical one. -- Matt From rytal at yahoo.co.uk Mon Sep 12 16:14:48 2005 From: rytal at yahoo.co.uk (Auria) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 16:14:48 -0000 Subject: who bought the Peruvian instant darkness powder In-Reply-To: <000701c5b797$6f001bf0$3e781652@thorburn> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140045 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Derek Thorburn" wrote: > One thing I've been wondering is who bought the Peruvian instant darkness > powder from Fred and George's shop. I've been wondering whether or not > there could have either been a death eater on the scene at the time Fred and > George were explaining to Harry its use, or whether it was someone else who > had taken polly juice potion and was masquerading as another person. > Somehow, I don't think Malfoy would have gone into the shop, since he thinks > of the Weesley family as riff raff. Perhaps in book 7, Ron will speak to > the twins and find out who bought it. > > Derek Good point. Perhaps Malfoy paid someone to do it....remember there was a young boy in the shop who was going to steal something and either Fred or George warned him against it (I dont have the book to hand for the exact wording). Auria From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 12 16:42:22 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 16:42:22 -0000 Subject: Snape's "saving" of Harry--was Re: Hard time for Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140046 > Julie says: > That is what I meant. Snape could have allowed Harry to be killed by > Quirrell. And that's not the opportunity Snape let pass. Alla: I am not so sure about that. As Sherry said - Dumbledore tells Harry exactly why Snape saved him - because he consideres himself indebted to James, right? Well, I most definitely assumed that it meant that Snape is an honorable man ( honestly, despite me hating his teaching tactics, I did think that he has a sense of honor prior to OOP). But we still do not know precisely how life debt works, don't we? What if Snape indeed will be hit by magic somehow and badly, if he does not pay off his debt? After all, someone who breaks unbrekable vow dies, why can't it be that someone who has a life debt to another person will also suffer, if the debt is not fulfilled, or at least attempted to be fulfilled? > Julie says: > And this is my biggest problem with ESE!Snape. Why has he bothered to > hide his *true* colors so many times when it wasn't necessary at all? > Why help Harry in SS/PS, or in OotP, when he could have sat back and > let events take their course? And why take Sirius and Harry back to > Hogwarts on stretchers in POA? He could have just left them there, or- > -especially in the case of his hated enemy Sirius--delivered a quick, > fatal spell and been done with it. Alla: Oh, Julie, whatever problems I may have with ESE!Snape, taking Sirius and Harry back to the castle on stretchers is the very last of them :-) The way I read Snape is that whether he is good, evil or out for himself he wants recognition, fame, etc and what is the better way to get recognition than to deliver Azkaban escapee to the Ministyr and gleefully watch how he can be "lawfully" kissed by Dementors. The extrabonus would be to watch poor Remus being kissed of course AND to show Dumbledore that he WAS wrong after all to hire Remus because Snape told him so. Going back to saving Harry, I am actually quite open to OFH!Snape, who was still picking and choosing sides in PS/SS and started resenting Dumbledore badly after POA, when Dumbledore basically made him the object of public humiliation ( in Snape view, IMO). JMO, Alla. From lolita_ns at yahoo.com Mon Sep 12 16:26:34 2005 From: lolita_ns at yahoo.com (lolita_ns) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 16:26:34 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End--further evidence for DDsMan!Snape?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140047 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: >I've > wondered if Voldemort knew, though, (via Harry) that Snape was giving > Occlumency lessons to Harry and if he had to explain himself. > Lolita: I think he did. Remember the lesson when Harry legilemensed SS? He did it almost without any effort. He just cast a Protego, and the next moment he was able to *see* SS before him and then also see into him. I think this was a moment when LV visited Harry (Harry is *not* a Legilimens, and there is no reason a legilimens spell would backfire in such a way - even if Protego was a kind of a shield, it would just block SS's intrusion, not turn it completely the way it did, so that Harry would be able to see Snape's mind). The scene continues: "Snape was shaking slightly, and was very white in the face ... /.../ Panting slightly, Snape straightened the Pensieve in which he had again stored some of his thoughts before starting the lesson, almost as though he was checking they were still there." (OotP, ch. 26) Now, my guess is that SS was told by DD that LV might decide to join him & Harry on Occlumency lesons and that he is to prepare himself. Why else would he keep his memories in a pensieve? I don't think he gives squat about *Harry* seeing sth incriminating - for that matter, if he thinks that a pensieve is a better place to keep his memories safe from a teenage boy (who is not a legilimens, but who he knows is as curious as a cat and will therefore take any chance to take a peek in the Pensieve) than in a mind of an expert Occlumens, then he is just plain stupid. And you will agree that he is not stupid. Quite the opposite. So, IMHO, Snape used the Pensieve to shield some of his memories, not from HARRY, but from VOLDEMORT - in case he decided to take a peek. That is why SS is so shaken when he realizes what has happened. And, oh, yes - just *incidentally*, this is the very same lesson when Harry, NOT KNOWING WHAT CAME OVER HIM, asks Snape whether he spies on DEs, and Snape smugly says 'Yes'. And a few minutes later, Harry just *accidentally* happens to legilimens Snape? And Snape is then so white and checks to see whether his memories are still in the Pensieve just because *Harry* saw some of his childhood memories? I don't think so. No, I'm positive that this was LV's excursion into Harry's mind. Actually, he was in his mind throughout Year 5, on an on&off basis. And when SS said - with a smirk - that he was a spy - LV decided to check up on him, just in case. If I was Snape, I would be white and shaking too. And as for being punished by LV for teaching Harry occlumency - maybe he *was*, like Ron said, making Harry weeker. Not necessarily in the literal sense of the word, but maybe he just wasn't trying hard enough to teach him well. That was by far the most dangerous task set for Snape by his two masters - and he masterfully botched it and blamed it on Harry. (The scenario is as follows: SS - Cover my arse for DD: 'The boy is not trying hard enough. He invaded my privacy. I won't see him again, he insulted me.' SS - Cover my arse for LV: 'Oh, Potter just happened to see me every time making such a show of storing my memories in the pensieve and then I was just accidentally in such a hurry to see Montague that I couldn't tell Potter to go away, leave the office myself and lock it? I just accidentally left Potter alone with my pensieve, where I stored the memory that would upset Potter the most, shake his ideas about his father&godfather and make him sympathise with *me*, of all people.') This *is* an instance of a master at work. He got away from this hard task and covered his arse both ways. LV probably congratulated him, and DD probably appologised. And one more thing: Why on earth would SS make such a show of stupid wand waving and silly incantation when legilimensing Harry when we saw that he doesn't actually need to do it? In every other instance of legilimency, SS just looks Harry in the eye and sees what he has been up to. In my opinion, this is another charade for LV's sake: LV may know that SS is an Occlumens (if SS is ESE, then there is a strong possibility that LV trained him in occlumency himself), but not that he is a Legilimens also. A true Legilimens doesn't need to brandish his wand and mutter 'legilimens' (we saw LV in action so many times - including the end of PS and the battle in Mom at the end of OotP - then we can tell that this is indeed the case), but somebody who isn't *does* have to do it. So, IMHO, SS is trying to keep LV from knowing that he is both an Occlumens and a Legilimens. Lolita. From jajjmj at quixnet.net Mon Sep 12 16:42:34 2005 From: jajjmj at quixnet.net (Jo) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 16:42:34 -0000 Subject: Necklace at #12 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140048 I have been re-reading all the books and when I came to OotP, I noticed that the necklace with the medalion that no one could open was being put in the stack of items to discard when they were cleaning. There was no indication that Kreacher rescued it. (Page 116, US edition) Does anyone know where it went, since it has been mentioned frequently as a possible Horcrux. It appears to have been discarded with the trash. Jo From muellem at bc.edu Mon Sep 12 18:10:11 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 18:10:11 -0000 Subject: Necklace at #12 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140049 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jo" wrote: > I have been re-reading all the books and when I came to OotP, I > noticed that the necklace with the medalion that no one could open was > being put in the stack of items to discard when they were cleaning. > There was no indication that Kreacher rescued it. (Page 116, US > edition) Does anyone know where it went, since it has been mentioned > frequently as a possible Horcrux. It appears to have been discarded > with the trash. > Jo nobody knows where the necklace went. It could be Kreacher took it, it could be that it was thrown out with the rest of the trash or it could be somewhere else in the house. I think that one of the chapters in book 7 will be entitled: "Chapter 25: Harry Digs Thru the Local Rubbish Dump". Now the burning question is: Do Wizards have separate garbage dumps or do they use muggle's? And aren't they worried about nasty things, like the Black stuff, getting into either their dumps or muggle dumps? I would think that the dark magic objects would be sent to MoM to be *unhexed* or something like that... colebiancardi From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 12 19:40:50 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 19:40:50 -0000 Subject: How many kids in Harry's year? ( JKR's quote) WAS:Re: Harry's study habits. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140050 Alla wrote: > > So, at the very least we have the reason to doubt whether it is 40 or 600, IMO. > > > Potioncat responded: > Yes, she says she fleshed out 40 students for Harry's year, and it > appears she worked out a handful more for other years. It seems she has a vague idea of a busy bustling school of young wizards. She didn't work out the actual numbers, determine how many teachers she needed, how many dormitories, whether the common rooms were big enough, how the schedule would work and if all those kids could be served meals in the Great Hall at one time. >We have to be careful how we use numbers because JKR is not careful with them. She says so herself. Carol responds: OTOH, we have twenty brooms for Slytherin and Gryffindor combined in the SS/PS flying lesson, twenty pairs of earmuffs for the combined Hufflepuff and Gryffindor Herbology lesson in the same book, very close to forty students in the Sorting ceremony (Crabbe and Goyle are skipped, but we know where they were placed). The Sorting Hat talks in OoP about "quartering" the students, so we can safely assume that Ravenclaw has at least roughly the same number as the other houses, and surely there aren't more intellectually gifted Ravenclaws than ordinary, hard-working Hufflepuffs. We're given eight boggarts (all but Hermione's and Harry's, apparently) in Lupin's DADA class in PoA. There's no evidence anywhere in the books until the DADA lesson in OoP that there are more than forty students (including exactly ten Gryffindors) in Harry's year (or any indication that other classes are larger). I'll grant you JKR's ineptitude with numbers--there's no way that Charlie Weasley can be two years older than Percy with Slytherin winning the Quidditch cup for the previous seven years--but the figures in the early books fit quite nicely with 40 students in Harry's year. (I think JKR belatedly tried to make the numbers fit her estimate in an interview of 1,000 students in the school. Think of the workload that would create for the professors with only one teacher per subject, even if only a small number of sixth and seventh years take a given subject. The teachers of the core subjects--Potions, Transfiguration, Charms, Herbology, and DADA--would be overwhelemed, wizards/witches or not. I would certainly reject the number of carriages (roughly 100--the narrator, seeing with Harry's eyes, isn't actually counting--carrying the students back to Hogwarts in OoP and the number of students in the Great Hall for a banquet (again, surely inexact) and go with the forty students she delineated, which fits the five Gryffindor boys in Harry's year, the twenty brooms, etc.--not to mention that JKR has promised to give the names of the two missing Gryffindor girls. Forty "fleshed out" students in Harry's year times seven years (roughly 280 students) and a faculty of roughly a dozen in a castle that could hold many times that number--that's what the evidence adds up to--with any numbers that contradict that figure chalked up to JKR's lack of concern with such details. There is, in any case, no way that McGonagall or Snape or any teacher could deal with *600* students in Harry's year (times seven to encompass all years) even if the evidence supported such an estimate. Carol From mojonono8 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 12 20:02:06 2005 From: mojonono8 at yahoo.com (mojonono8) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:02:06 -0000 Subject: How many kids in Harry's year? ( JKR's quote). In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140052 Yes, the logistics don't work. Sometimes she says "hundreds of students" making it sound like a whole lot. The only mention that makes sense is that there are five boys in Harry's year who are in the same dorm room. So, probably five girls too and thus 40 total. Mojonono. From mojonono8 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 12 20:09:11 2005 From: mojonono8 at yahoo.com (mojonono8) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:09:11 -0000 Subject: the horcruxes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140053 I can't find any place where people want to discuss the horcruxes. I am obsessed with the unknown ones. JKR mentioned in an interview that she was expecting someone to post the ones that are "revealed" in HBP. So, they must be there for the taking. My latest thought is that one must revolve around the Black's stuff. The reasoning is that there were several passages in the book about Mungdungas and Black's stollen stuff. Why did she mention it if it didn't relate to something important? JKR isn't like that. Mojonono. From muellem at bc.edu Mon Sep 12 20:11:55 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:11:55 -0000 Subject: How many kids in Harry's year? ( JKR's quote) WAS:Re: Harry's study habits. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140054 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: give the names of the two missing Gryffindor girls. > > Forty "fleshed out" students in Harry's year times seven years > (roughly 280 students) and a faculty of roughly a dozen in a castle > that could hold many times that number--that's what the evidence adds > up to--with any numbers that contradict that figure chalked up to > JKR's lack of concern with such details. There is, in any case, no way > that McGonagall or Snape or any teacher could deal with *600* students > in Harry's year (times seven to encompass all years) even if the > evidence supported such an estimate. > > Carol I try to stay away from the *how many kids* in Hogwarts discussions; but I had to give my 2 knuts worth! LOL Carol stated that there is no way that any teacher could deal with 600 students in one given year. I agree with her statement; however, I can imagine more than 280 kids in a house. Firstly, this is a wizarding world, so I am sure there are some tricks to deal with reading the essays :) Second, the classes meet once or twice a week, no? And some of the classes are double, which means they are 1 1/2 hours with another house included. It seems that Snape's potion class and Sprout's Herbalogy and Hagrids Care of Magical Creatures are always double until 6th year. Once the 6 year happens, it seems it is a mixure of who can get into the course. So, a single class is about 45 minutes with one house. And once the students get to 6th year, they don't all take potions or transfiguration or some of the classes they were *forced* to take. It would be interesting to find out what classes are taught as double, what classes are required(it seems that in the 3rd year, they can start taking electives), what is the max and min load of classes and how many teachers are at Hogwarts, so that additional mapping of the schedules of students & the teachers can be accurately done. colebiancardi From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 12 21:12:44 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:12:44 -0000 Subject: been gone a while. . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140055 snipsnapsnurr wrote: > i've been moving so i haven't kept up and there are about a million > posts that i missed. have we at least agreed that snape is not evil? SSSusan: Absolutely *no* agreement has been reached around here! :-) But if you (or anyone else who hasn't done so, for that matter) would like to weigh in with your opinion about Snape since HBP, remember there's a poll open on this issue: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=1916317 Siriusly Snapey Susan From msbeadsley at yahoo.com Mon Sep 12 21:47:43 2005 From: msbeadsley at yahoo.com (msbeadsley) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:47:43 -0000 Subject: Thin air/Choices Was re:sex/VanishingCabinet/SoulsEtc/Badger/Ch.2/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140056 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Matt" wrote: > Dumbledore's *actions* -- engaging in a lengthy dialogue to try > to persuade Draco to step back from the brink -- strongly suggest > that he thinks Draco's decision is very much in doubt. Dumbledore > is teaching here, just as he is in the scene at the end of GF, when > he exhorts the students to choose what is right, not what is easy. > And ultimately I don't think Dumbledore would have chosen the career > that he did if he did not believe his charges could be taught, on a > moral level as well as a practical one. Well said! This is exactly how I read this. Dumbledore stresses to Draco that he is not a killer. OTOH, we, as readers, know that Draco *has* acted in a way that was meant to result in murder, half-heartedly or not (and we also know that Dumbledore knows this), and so may have some cognitive dissonance (otherwise known as WTF!?) around Dumbledore's speech. (As I said in an earlier post, I see Draco as "innocent" of actual murder, but not as "an innocent" by any means.) "Exhorts" is exactly the word I would use. Dumbledore means Draco to hear his words as absolution and benediction; consequences can wait (they're not going anywhere) for leisure and a safe space. Dumbledore takes full advantage of Draco's teetering to shove him bodily up onto solid ground as far and with as much force as he can muster (as the alternative is an abrupt end to any relevant choice on either of their parts). At this point, with life and soul hanging in the balance, I think Dumbledore absolutely *ought* to be acting as "puppetmaster" to as great a degree as he can manage. One of the things childrearing adults *do* is manipulate (oh, that dirty word) their charges. If they're doing the job, that is. Sandy aka msbeadsley From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 12 22:44:31 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:44:31 -0000 Subject: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort (was: Re: Draco's culpability...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140057 > >>Alla: > > Draco worked on opening the door, which led something or > > somebody who kills to Hogwarts. > > > > So, I am not quite sure why he gets a pass from you since he > > used less deadly means which led to the very same end as if > > he would work on a bomb for Dumbledore, > >>Sistermagpie: > I don't think he *does* get a pass from her (correct me if I'm > wrong, of course, Betsy). Her point isn't that working on the > cabinet has nothing to do with DD getting killed. What Betsy is > doing, from what I read in the thread, is not trying to absolve > Draco of responsibility that is obviously his, but focusing more > on the meaning the act in the context of his story and character. > Betsy Hp: Exactly! Thank you for clarifying this so well, Sistermagpie, and welcome to the group. Fixing the Vanishing Cabinet, though a means to a very ugly end is not, in and of itself, evil. [Actually, there's a sort of photo-negative comparison that can be made with Tom Riddle, here. The search for immortality is not, in and of itself, an evil thing (see Flamel's Stone). However, creating a horcrux is certainly an evil way of going about it.] > >>Marainne: > I have to jump in here. Draco is not a killer at this point simply > because others have prevented it. Sure, Draco's target is DD, but > the only reason that either Katie Bell or Ron did not die is due to > happenstance. The only reason Draco is not a coldhearted, murdering > little bastard is that his unintended victims just happened to be > rescued. Draco worked on opening a door, but he also worked on a > lethal necklace and poisoned mead. Betsy Hp: That's quite true. And it's *very* lucky for Draco to my mind, because it leaves a door open for him. I think the fact that no one died is what makes the conversation he has with Dumbledore at the end of HBP possible. (Which means, of course, that it wasn't so much luck as JKR. Yay JKR! ) Though I'd also add that Draco's slow breakdown throughout HBP suggest that he's not really coldhearted, IMO. I think if he *had* killed Katie or Ron he'd have broken completely. (Compared to say, Tom Riddle or Peter Pettigrew who seem completely unaffected by any murders they've committed, inadvertent or otherwise.) > >>Marianne: > Draco has always had the option of refusing to play Voldemort's > game. Sure, he's held at gun (wand) point. He can still always > say "No." Had he refused at some point during the school year to > continue on his quest to kill DD, then that would be the end. Sure, > he might have died and in addition Narcissa may have been killed. > But, that would have undercut Vmort's designs on killing DD, and > would perhaps have benefitted the WW to a great degree than what > has happened at least in part due to Draco's pursuit of his quest. Betsy Hp: Don't you think you're asking a tremendous amount of Draco here? How many sixteen year olds do you know would be willing to sacrifice not only their lives but the lives of their parents for anything? Especially for a philosophy they've been raised to despise? Remember, as far as Draco is concerned, the Order, or folks of that ilk, put his father in jail. Honestly, do you think Harry would allow his mother to die to save Snape's life, if he was faced with such a choice? Gosh, would Harry allow his mother to die even to save Dumbledore? What would you give your mother's life for? (This is another thing that's interesting to me. JKR doesn't just give Draco a choice between his life and Dumbledore's. She throws Draco's mom into the mix. She's practically making Draco *noble*. Or at the very least, giving him one heck of a dilemma.) > >>Betsy Hp (message #137075): > > > > I'm not sure if JKR had this particular idea in mind while she > > was writing, but once I noticed the pattern of three I > > immediately thought of Peter who three times denies Christ > > before the Crucifixion and then, after the Resurrection, is able > > to redeem himself when Christ asks Peter three times if he loves > > him. > > > >>a_svirn: > Do you mean to say that Draco loves Dumbledore? He seems to hide it > well. And Peter was a disciple of Christ who denied him. Hardly > applicable to Draco's situation. Betsy Hp: As I said, I don't mean for this to be taken literally. I was looking more at the fact that Peter makes a wrong choice three times and then Jesus gives him three chances to choose again. Draco attempts to become a killer three times (the necklace, the poisoned mead, and disarming Dumbledore). Dumbledore essentially asks Draco three times to prove he's a killer, Draco is unable to do so, and Dumbledore tells him that he *isn't* a killer. IOW, Draco made three bad choices and Dumbledore gave him three chances to choose again. > >>a_svirn: > Yeah, three's a charm. Betsy Hp: I think you might be saying this flippantly, but it's quite true. In many different cultures and many different traditions, there *is* a charm (a magic) to the number three. Just as there is to the number seven. So I do think JKR was deliberate in the number of times Dumbledore and Draco went through that whole "best kill me then," "..." "Draco, you're not a killer" routine. Especially when Draco is so strongly pressured to become a killer once the Death Eaters show up. Betsy Hp, who once again pulled from many different posts so may have messed with the order of things a bit. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Sep 12 22:55:14 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:55:14 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End--further evidence for DDsMan!Snape?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140058 > Potioncat: > Congratulations to Neri, the delay has almost become canon! The > thread about this has been my all time favorite, even though I > disagree with the "delay" conculsion. > Neri: Thanks . > DD says that Snape responded immediately and BADASS ALBUS it is. > > Given that Patronuses are the method of communication, and they > appear to take some time to get from here to there and also appear to > be one-way and given that JKR has not always relied on scientific > charts for her data...I don't think Snape delayed. > Neri: I recently discussed how the revelation about the Order's method of communication affects the question of Snape's delay in: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137349 My conclusion was that this revelation doesn't make Snape look any better, more likely worse. Regarding the "scientific charts", they weren't really needed to construct the delay timeline. I've recently noticed that JKR knows very well at what hour the sun sets in Scotland in the summer. This is obvious from the PoA climax, which takes place at the same time of the year as the OotP climax. The famous 3 hours that Harry and Hermione lived through twice are canonically from 9 PM to midnight, and JKR tells us that when the trio were going to Hagrid's hut at 9 the sun was yet to set. This coincides very well with our scientifically charted sunset time for the OotP climax. As to the hour of first light of dawn we don't have canon from JKR, but in our timeline we used a very early hour (IIRC around 3:00 AM). I can't believe JKR thinks it's even earlier, and if she thinks it's later then this would make the time Snape delayed even longer. Julie wrote: > > I confess I can't think of any reason for Snape not to tell Bellatrix that > he delayed notifying the Order of Harry's suspected journey to the DoM. > If he's ESE! then he has no reason to keep it quiet. If he's DD's Man, > then he had no reason to delay notifying the Order in the first place. Neri: The reason that Snape wouldn't want to bring it up is that this whole timing issue is very delicate from his POV. Bella was there at the DoM, triumphantly aiming her wand at Neville and practically making Harry surrender just when the Order members broke in. Had Snape bragged about the delay, Bella would have rightly told him "if you had delayed even *one more minute* we would have had the prophecy in our hands. But *you* were more worried about blowing up your precious cover than about winning the war". The reason that *JKR* wouldn't want to bring up the timing issue is that it's a bit complicated to explain. It would have made the narrative in Spinner's End longer and more cumbersome (and after OotP JKR clearly became sensitive about the length of the books). Snape *does* say that his orders were not to interfere, and he does take some credit for Sirius' death, and after all he claims so many crimes in this chapter that one more or less would hardly change anything. Would you have accepted the delay as a proof for ESE!Snape only because he bragged about it in front of Bella? I suspect not. I don't expect JKR to bring up the timing issue in Book 7, for the same reasons: it's complicated and redundant. Perhaps she'll refer to it in an interview or in her website once the series is finished. This is more an issue of proper plotting. When JKR plotted the OotP climax, it's nearly unbelievable (math problems or not) that she didn't notice the 5 hours difference between Umbridge taking Harry to the forest and the Order members breaking into the DoM. She had to decide what were the Order members doing during all that time, and why didn't they respond sooner. Especially after she made clear that the they were guarding Harry devotedly throughout the year, and after the assassination attempt that nearly succeeded because Dung let Harry out of his sight for just one hour. So JKR had to divide the responsibility for these missing 5 hours and disguise them in a way that wouldn't prematurely blow up Snape's cover and wouldn't attract too much attention. This she did skillfully using sentences like (paraphrasing from memory) "once you did not come back from the forest, Professor Snape grew worried and contacted the Order at once". The words "at once" disguise the question of how much time was "not coming back from the forest" and when exactly did Snape "grow worried". Only a detailed timelining would reveal that it must have been around midnight. JKR had Dumbledore telling us that Snape intended to search the forest himself, which sounds good, and in another place that "it was Snape who deduced where you went when you didn't come back from the forest", which also sounds good. You need to combine these two statements to realize that Snape went to search the forest (if at all) *after* he himself deduced Harry was no longer there. And of course, JKR made Harry blaming Snape for the wrong reasons, so we'd all argue about them and miss the real problem. What JKR *didn't* do is to clearly imply that during these 5 hours the Order members in 12GP had known that Harry was under a mind attack and running somewhere in the Forbidden Forrest with Umbridge, and yet did nothing about it. This would have taken the responsibility out of Snape's shoulders. But IMO it would have been practically unbelievable for Sirius to leave this in Snape's hands and not come running, or for the paranoid Moody not to check on the guards in the DoM just to make sure. So JKR muddied and disguised the missing 5 hours issue the best she could. Now that the issue is thoroughly muddied, it's not convenient to raise it in books 6 and 7, and as I've said above it also rather redundant. Neri From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Sep 12 23:35:33 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:35:33 -0000 Subject: That darn Prophecy again.. Re: Thin air/Choices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140060 > Valky: > Are you agreeing with my interpretation here a_svirn? I am not sure I > understand what you mean by that. > Yes, I am. (No hidden sarcasm, honest.) I meant to say that it's exactly what JKR said when she brought in Macbeth analogy. She borrows rather heavily from all Shakespeare, but since she decided to show her hand with this parallel I think we can take her at her word, as it were. Oracles are notoriously "imperfect speakers", as Macbeth put, it and their equivocations disguise rather more than they disclose. In itself "supernatural solicitation cannot be ill, cannot be good" but there is still a question how to react to the disclosure. By trying to kill Harry Voldemort naturally tried to gain a measure of control over the forces that are beyond his reach. He "spurned fate" and "scorned death" in hope to become "more than a man", but the result, of course, was that he's become rather less. And that's where the horcruces come in, the way I see it. I kind of agree with your overall interpretation of "multiple wills", even though I arrive at it from the opposite end so to speak. I don't quite like the idea of Horcruces (and I feel uneasy about the word itself) so my point of departure is the Prophesy. There has been quite a discussion on-list about free will, Kiekegaard and Calvinism, but I think that JKR's approach to the problem of Will and etiology of Evil is more in the line with old good Clement and Tertullian. I think it may be summed as follows: it is through our free will that Evil enters this world. But Evil is also Non-being. By turning to the absolute Evil Voldemort tried to achieve Immortality, but, without realizing it, he ceased to be a person he was: in other words, ceased to be. He is not a person anymore, rather a personification of Evil. And the same is true for his followers, Quirrel "opened his soul to Lord Voldemort" e.g. to Evil with the result that he gradually ceased to be the person he was and continued his existence only as a "vessel" for Voldemort. When Voldemort shed his body there wasn't anything left in him to live on. In the end we have a paradox of sorts: it takes one's free will to set the whole "depersonification" process in motion, but once it started it is outside one's control. That's how the ideas of prophecy and horcruces are connected, I think. I see horcruces, "a mutilation of one's soul" as JKR's metaphor for this "depersonification". The less human Voldemort becomes the more confident he grows of his powers. But as we know from Hecate "security / Is mortals' chiefest enemy". The Prophesy acted as bait that Voldemort took thus loosing last vestiges of control over his own destiny. From that moment on indeed everything he did would ultimately lead to his undoing. And I think you are right, these separate shreds of his soul each with their separate maimed wills will prove his weakest point. I don't think that it will necessarily turn out to be a battle of double-hangers, though. Although it's a possibility, of course. Sorry for the long answer, a_svirn From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Sep 13 00:57:30 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:57:30 -0000 Subject: the horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140061 In Mojonono: I can't find any place where people want to discuss the horcruxes. I am obsessed with the unknown ones. JKR mentioned in an interview that she was expecting someone to post the ones that are "revealed" in HBP. So, they must be there for the taking. My latest thought is that one must revolve around the Black's stuff. The reasoning is that there were several passages in the book about Mungdungas and Black's stollen stuff. Why did she mention it if it didn't relate to something important? JKR isn't like that. vmonte: From; http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/132914 vmonte: I think that Regulus took Kreacher with him to the cave. Kreacher also probably drank the potion. Also, if Regulus had a need to get anything from Grimmauld Place Kreacher would have been able to snap his fingers and be beack and forth in minutes. Dumbledore mentioned to Harry that 2 people would have had to have gone to get the locket. OotP, Ch. 6: "They found an unpleasant-looking silver instrument, something like a many -legged pair of tweezers, which scuttled up Harry's arm like a spider when he picked it up, and attempted to puncture his skin; Sirius seized it and smashed it with a heavy book entitled Nature's Nobility: A Wizarding Genealogy. There was a musical box that emitted a faintly sinister, tinkling tune when wound, and they all found themselves becoming curiously weak and sleepy until Ginny had the sense to slam the lid shut; also a heavy locket that none of them could open, a number of ancient seals and, in a dusty box, an Order of Merlin, First Class, that had been awarded to Sirius's grandfather for "Services to the Ministry." Regulus was probably killed right after he and Kreacher came back with the locket. No wonder Harry has to live a Sirius's house next year. The locket is either in Kreacher's sleeping area or with the items Mundungus stole. Vivian Now regarding Harry's scar as a Horcrux: Didn't Harry predict his death by decapitation during one of Trelawny's homework assignments? From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Sep 13 01:04:20 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 01:04:20 -0000 Subject: That darn Prophecy again.. Re: Thin air/Choices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140062 > Cerwidwen: > > This is where I would, regretfully, slip into thinking Harry is a > > horcrux, or else his scar. Yes, the scar, given the choice. > > Voldemort kills what he inhabits. If Vapour!Mort was soul or bits > > of soul, then this all fits together. > > Jen: You and me both, the 'regretfully' part :). As much as I > personally dislike the idea, the evidence keeps stacking up. Valky: I admit to being all but convinced of it myself. I am held back only by the fact that noone actually knowing it, not Dumbledore and not Voldemort, is barely conceivable. > Cerwidwen: > > I'm open to the idea that there is something other than a horcrux > > sort of soul-piece that can be given by Voldemort, which can > > shield Harry from the sort of destruction Dumbledore suffered. If > > not a soul-piece, then something that the soul fragment within the > > horcrux, can recognize. Valky: I have taken a walk in this direction. and written some thoughts on it which I haven't posted yet. It still supposes that horcrux magic was flying around Godrics Hollow that night, but Harry doesn't necessarily end up with a piece of Voldies soul. What happens instead is that Voldmeort falls victim to a curse he put on his own body, to make it unkillable. The scar therfore is where Harry gets touched by that curse which is in line with what Hagrid told him in PS/SS, and Dumbledore too was a victim of this curse which would explain the lightning shaped crack in the ring. The greatest detail I can, at this time, think to put on the events of Godrics Hollow, is that when he killed Lily, in his haste to get to Harry, he failed to be aware of all the magic that he had previously put into effect. Lily's magic, her sacrifice somehow penetrated his magical shield. He could have known that this had happened except that he was ignorant of the power of her Loving Sacrifice and he carried on unheeded throwing his curse at Harry. Through his ignorance of the Love magic he failed to notice that his curse intended to protect him from being killed by the hand of another, was effectively mirrored back at him. The Scar itself is the sign on Harrys innocent head showing not that he survived Voldemorts Avada Kedavra, but that he survived *killing* Voldemort, something even less possible than surviving Voldemort trying to kill you. I know this is going to need a lot more work. I can't quite decide what Harry is exactly other than the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord (which is really all that this says so far). I do think, however, that the curse itself is embedded in the prophecy words *for* neither can live while the other survives. Can anyone actually see that or was my illustration too vague? Valky From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Sep 13 01:23:03 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 01:23:03 -0000 Subject: Snape's "saving" of Harry--was Re: Hard time for Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140063 >Julie: That is what I meant. Snape could have allowed Harry to be killed by Quirrell. And that's not the opportunity Snape let pass. vmonte responds: Snape: "I had a comfortable job that I preferred to a stint in Azkaban. Thet were rounding up the Death Eaters, you know. Dumbledore's protection kept me out of jail; it was most convenient and I used it." (p27, Spinner's End) Bella: "But why did you keep him alive?" Snape: "Have you not understood me? It was only Dumbledore's protection that was keeping me out of Azkaban! Do you disagree that murdering his favorite student might have turned him against me?" (p30, Spinner's End) So, while Harry is at the school Snape must protect him and not kill him, which would look very suspicious to Dumbledore. Dumbledore to Snape: "I don't understand Severus. Weren't you at the Quidditch match when Professor Quirrell jinxed Harry's broom?" Snape: "I must have been tying my shoelaces at the time head master. And it's PROFESSOR Snape, thank you." This is probably the reason why Snape wanted Harry to get expelled from school so that Harry would lose Dumbledore's security. >Alla: Oh, Julie, whatever problems I may have with ESE!Snape, taking Sirius and Harry back to the castle on stretchers is the very last of them :-) The way I read Snape is that whether he is good, evil or out for himself he wants recognition, fame, etc and what is the better way to get recognition than to deliver Azkaban escapee to the Ministyr and gleefully watch how he can be "lawfully" kissed by Dementors. The extrabonus would be to watch poor Remus being kissed of course AND to show Dumbledore that he WAS wrong after all to hire Remus because Snape told him so. Going back to saving Harry, I am actually quite open to OFH!Snape, who was still picking and choosing sides in PS/SS and started resenting Dumbledore badly after POA, when Dumbledore basically made him the object of public humiliation ( in Snape view, IMO). vmonte: I agree with you Alla. Snape is always looking for recognition. I really think that it's based in insecurity, or else why would he be so emotionally stunted. Vivian From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 13 01:46:26 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 01:46:26 -0000 Subject: Dealing with Dementors: Harry v Snape, Love v Happy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140064 Kemper wrote: > First, Snape has a different method than what *Harry* considers the > norm. Second, I question whether the skill is tied into love and > goodness: > > Imagining someone being sacked is not a thought filled with love nor > goodness. But back to topic: Having Dementors around would make producing a patronus harder, but if a Dementor would have suddenly appeared during after Harry's patronus in his DADA O.W.L., I have no doubt that Harry's Patronus, created from a bit of self-righteous contempt, could have successfully charged and scared off that Dementor... easily. Thoughts? > Vivian (vmonte) responded: > I don't know Kemper. If creating an effective patronus were that > simple then anyone could do it, no? Harry wasn't really fighting off > a dementor during his O.W.L.S. was he? >> > Lupin admits that it gets harder the more dementors there are. How > far then can a self-righteous memory take you? We also know that > during Harry's lessons he is not fighting a real dementor but a > boggart, which is not the actual thing. A lesser memory would also > probably do the trick here. > > But self-righteous contempt does not explain how Harry was able to > knock down the "swarming dementors" at the end of PoA (IMO). It's > more than likely that it has to do with the love and goodness that > Harry represents/carries. Carol replies to both: Excellent points and support on both sides here. Since it seems clear that both "love and goodness" and "self-righteous contempt" can create a Patronus (at least in the classroom), I'd like to take the discussion back to Kemper's original point, that just because *Harry* can create a corporeal Patronus when he's facing Dementors doesn't mean that his method is right for everyone. That being the case, I would argue, Snape's alternate method might well be useful for students other than Harry. To begin with, I seem to recall Lupin in PoA saying that producing a Patronus is "advanced magic, well beyond the Ordinary Wizardiing Level" (although that quote may be from the film rather than the book). It's not clear whether the Patronus Lupin casts on the train is "corporeal" or not (though of course we know he can cast one to send messages to fellow Order members). It seems to be merely a flash of white light. As Lupin notes in the quote I snipped from Vivian's post, producing a Patronus is difficult and gets more difficult with more Dementors. In any case, Madam Bones is clearly impressed in OoP that Harry can produce "a corporeal Patronus" at age fifteen (much less thirteen, if she knew). Clearly, however, not every witch or wizard, especially school-age kids, can cast a Patronus even in a classroom setting or Harry would not have received a bonus point for doing so during his OWLs. We do see Harry's friends in the DA learning to cast a Patronus, but not in the face of a real Dementor. In fact, they can't even practice on a Boggart as Harry did since none of them has a Dementor Boggart. (Somehow casting an Expecto Patronum against what looks like Professor Snape or Aragog--or McGonagall telling you that you've failed all your classes--isn't quite the same as casting one against a pseudo-Dementor as Harry does in his private lessons with Lupin in PoA.) Harry has a great advantage over his fellow students in terms of learning to cast this particular spell effectively--the opportunity to practice the spell on a pseudo-Dementor before having to cast it against real Dementors. Also the Patronus he casts so spectacularly in PoA is done from a distance to save his past self and Sirius from a Dementor that isn't threatening his present (or is it future?) self. All of this experience stands him in good stead when he's faced with the two Dementors in OoP. In the same situation, however, Hermione or Ron or the other DA members probably would not have fared so well. In fact, the consequences if Harry weren't with them would no doubt have been disastrous. Casting a Patronus requires concentrating on a happy thought, easy enough in the RoM with a group of fellow students but extraordinarily difficult when you're faced with a Dementor determined to suck all the happiness out of you (and possibly your soul as well). I wouldn't be at all surprised if Snape (whose happy memories are probably few and whom we know to be extremely creative with spells as well as potions) had come up with a way of dealing with Dementors that was just as effective as casting a corporeal Patronus and more easily grasped by students who don't happen to have Harry's gifts or experiences. But Harry's dislike of Snape, combined with his own experience in dealing with Dementors in a way that works well for *him,* causes him to dismiss Snape's method in favor of his own. And JKR, of course, withholds any information regarding the nature and effectiveness of Snape's method because it would give away too much about Snape's loyalties. (I would note, though, that there's no evidence of his sabotaging his own DADA classes by teaching useless or false information.) It's possible that Hermione will face a Dementor in Book 7, fail utterly to cast a Patronus because she can't concentrate on a happy memory in the circumstances, and remember Snape's method. If she does and it proves effective, it will be a nice piece of evidence for Good!Snape before we reach the end of the book (when we'll know for sure where his loyalties lie). BTW, I think Snape's reaction in CoS when he hears that "the monster" has taken a student into the Chamber of Secrets (his hand grips the back of his chair tightly and he asks, "How can you be sure?") is a fairly strong but widely ignored piece of evidence that he does care about the welfare of the students, as is his insistence on nonverbal duelling in his DADA classes. Carol, thinking that Kemper and Vivian are both right and that there's more than one way to deal with a Dementor From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Sep 13 01:48:52 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 01:48:52 -0000 Subject: That darn Prophecy again.. Re: Thin air/Choices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140065 Valky: I admit to being all but convinced of it myself. I am held back only by the fact that noone actually knowing it, not Dumbledore and not Voldemort, is barely conceivable. vmonte: I think that what happened was something that never happened before. Lily sacrificed her body for her son. It was Lily's sacrifice that created the horcrux. Every other (known) horcrux was created by killing another person. MA: Did she know anything about the possible effect of standing in front of Harry? JKR: No - because as I've tried to make clear in the series, it never happened before. No one ever survived before. And no one, therefore, knew that could happen. http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet- anelli-1.htm Vivian From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Sep 13 02:08:12 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 02:08:12 -0000 Subject: Dealing with Dementors: Harry v Snape, Love v Happy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140067 > Carol: > It's possible that Hermione will face a Dementor in Book 7, fail > utterly to cast a Patronus because she can't concentrate on a happy > memory in the circumstances, and remember Snape's method. Valky: But did Snape ever actually elaborate on or teach this alternative method? I don't remember that he did at all. Sorry to put sticks in your mud pie Carol ;D but I don't believe that Snapes method of dealing with Dementors is what you'd call *light* magic. A better method than a Patronus would be necessary to explainhow the MOM keep control over the Dementors in Azkaban, and for Death Eaters and Voldemort to have so much more power over them than the average wizard. It's also kind of surprising that Harry would only be taught a secondary method which was difficult to use while another one exists. Basically it all adds up to not boding for this alternative of Snapes to be good magic. The MOM is given to using a bit of dirty work when they deem it justified, and Voldemort there is no question, would use whatever alternative was more powerful OTOH Dumbledore and Lupin are firmly principled characters and it is they specifically that appear to prefer the Patronus. It almost seems given that this alternative is Dark Magic. Valky From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Sep 13 02:32:19 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 02:32:19 -0000 Subject: Necklace at #12 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140068 colebiancardi: > Now the burning question is: Do Wizards > have separate garbage dumps or do they use > muggle's? And aren't they worried about nasty > things, like the Black stuff, getting into > either their dumps or muggle dumps? houyhnhnm: I have been curious about this facet of Wizarding life myself. Surely Arthur Weasley would never have allowed Black paraphenalia to be put out for Muggle sanitation workers. I would guess they customarily evanesco the trash, but it seems like it might be kind of dangerous to do that with dark objects. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 13 02:32:33 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 02:32:33 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End--further evidence for DDsMan!Snape?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140069 Lolita: > So, IMHO, Snape used the Pensieve to shield some of his memories, > not from HARRY, but from VOLDEMORT - in case he decided to take a > peek. That is why SS is so shaken when he realizes what has > happened. SSSusan: I'm not discounting the possibility of this at all, Lolita, but I do have a question. *What* about Snape's memory with the Marauders & Lily & himself being flipped upside down do you think Snape would have wanted, especially, to prevent Voldy from seeing? If we assume "Snape's Worst Memory" refers to that one, and not to one of the others he deposited in the pensieve (and which we did not get to see), then why would this be the worst one? And would it be the worst one for Voldy to see? Siriusly Snapey Susan From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Sep 13 02:40:44 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 02:40:44 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End--further evidence for DDsMan!Snape?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140070 > Neri: > As to the hour of first light of dawn we don't > have canon from JKR, but in our timeline we used a > very early hour (IIRC around 3:00 AM). I can't believe > JKR thinks it's even earlier, and if she thinks it's > later then this would make the time Snape delayed even longer. houyhnhnm: The "cool line of pale green" sounds more like the beginning of civil twilight (which would push the time Harry arrives in DD's office back as much as an hour) than it does like sunrise. But I give you your five hours. So when did the Order arrive at the Ministry? How long did the flight to London take? How long was TeamHarry looking for the Hall of Prophecies? How long did they do battle with the DEs before the Order showed up? The only way to gauge time between the "bloodred sunset" when Harry's thestral takes off and Harry's arrival in DD's office is to judge by the amount of action that takes place. It doesn't add up. Not for Snape. Not for Rowling, IMO. My reason for not being suspicious of Snape does not hinge on whether or not he *could* have notified the Order sooner of Harry's failure to return from the forest, but whether he would have felt he had reason to. Snape contacted Sirius "at once". (And we don't know the content of the message) Sirius was fine. What was Snape going to do then? Contact Grimmauld Place again and tell them "Potter's channeling the DL again and he's gone off into the forest". They're going to be like "Whatta you want us to do about it?" Until a fair amount of time had elapsed, surely there was no reason to suspect that there was a problem. Harry left with Umbridge after all. Neri: > The reason that Snape wouldn't want to bring it up > is that this whole timing issue is very delicate > from his POV. houyhnhnm: How could Snape possibly let Bellatrix know he had alerted the Order AT ALL, early or late and regardless of his true loyalties. That would be Christmas come early for her--and Lucius. I can't see Snape saying anything about his communication with the Order but I can sure see him saying something about notifying LV that Harry was on his way, if he's a real DE. That would have earned him some serious bragging rights. And he could have really rubbed in with Bellatrix. "I delivered Potter to you and you blew it!" Why didn't he? [edited to correct some really dumb typos] From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Tue Sep 13 02:41:40 2005 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 02:41:40 -0000 Subject: Necklace at #12 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140071 > > I have been re-reading all the books and when I came to OotP, I > > noticed that the necklace with the medalion that no one could open > was > > being put in the stack of items to discard when they were cleaning. > > There was no indication that Kreacher rescued it. (Page 116, US > > edition) Does anyone know where it went, since it has been mentioned > > frequently as a possible Horcrux. OOTP Ch 23 - when Hermione is leaving a Christmas gift in Kreacher's cupboard, it says, "In the far cornerglinted small objects and coins that Harry guessed Kreaterhad saved, magpie-like, from Sirius's purge ... " The haul included photos that were thrown away over summer, so, Kreatcher didn't mind sifting through the garbage. aussie/norbertsmummy From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Sep 13 02:47:32 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 02:47:32 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End--further evidence for DDsMan!Snape?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140072 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > What JKR *didn't* do is to clearly imply that during these 5 hours > the Order members in 12GP had known that Harry was under a mind > attack and running somewhere in the Forbidden Forrest with Umbridge, and yet did nothing about it. This would have taken the responsibility out of Snape's shoulders. But IMO it would have been practically unbelievable for Sirius to leave this in Snape's hands and not come running, or for the paranoid Moody not to check on the guards in the DoM just to make sure. So JKR muddied and disguised the missing 5 hours issue the best she could. Now that the issue is thoroughly muddied, it's not convenient to raise it in books 6 and 7, and as I've said above it also rather redundant. Pippin: It sounds more like she muddied the five hours because she wanted Harry to be back in Dumbledore's office as the sun rose. Both Snape and the Order had to take a long time to notice that Harry was in trouble. But really, if the Order showed up at Hogwarts with Dumbledore and McGonagall both gone, that would blow Snape's cover for sure. I don't think even Sirius hated him enough to do that -- he might kill Snape himself, but he'd never betray a fellow Order member to Voldemort. I think you're also discounting the probability that all of them would have had trouble supposing that Harry would take the vision seriously once he'd had time to think it over. Suppose I told you I'd had a vision of Bin Laden in person holding my godfather hostage at the Pentagon -- would you believe it? Would you even think that I believed it? Even if I'd had an accurate vision before, it'd be awfully far-fetched. If I went missing, would that be the first place you looked? Pippin From sherriola at earthlink.net Tue Sep 13 03:09:36 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:09:36 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Spinner's End--further evidence for DDsMan!Snape?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <004d01c5b810$9393ed60$be24f204@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 140073 I think you're also discounting the probability that all of them would have had trouble supposing that Harry would take the vision seriously once he'd had time to think it over. Suppose I told you I'd had a vision of Bin Laden in person holding my godfather hostage at the Pentagon -- would you believe it? Would you even think that I believed it? Even if I'd had an accurate vision before, it'd be awfully far-fetched. If I went missing, would that be the first place you looked? Pippin Sherry now: But that's just it, isn't it? Of course, after the absolutely accurate vision he had of Arthur's attack, anyone who was using their brains would have to *know* Harry would believe it. He was 15, hardly a very rational age under the best of circumstances, and he certainly hadn't had the best of circumstances that year. If they didn't believe Harry would believe it, they were idiots! And yes, if you'd had an absolute right on vision of your best friend's loved one being attacked and been able to rescue him because of it, anyone who knew you would believe your next one, or at least they ought to know you would believe it. That, of course, is the most important point, that they should have known Harry would believe it. The thing with Arthur was traumatic and dramatic. And now it was Sirius, his godfather, his father's best friend. Oh yeah, he'd believe it. That's why I Have never bought into the idea that Harry should have just known it wasn't true, because he could never just sit back and hope it wasn't or risk the life of Sirius, hoping Snape would do something. He had no reason to trust him or believe he would, from his point of view. He had to go himself. I understand it completely, and the order members who were close to him--Lupin and Sirius definitely--should have known he'd go. Sherry From rbeache at earthlink.net Tue Sep 13 01:17:40 2005 From: rbeache at earthlink.net (Rachel Ellington) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:17:40 -0400 Subject: Questions about prophecy. References: <1126555917.2142.10872.m32@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <005901c5b800$ef8c5770$6701a8c0@IBME69E742C294> No: HPFGUIDX 140074 Finwitch says: Or that he wouldn't of killed this couple who had *thrice defied him* given half the chance? The few lines from the prophecy merely got him to prioritise the killing of the Potters... Rachel: A few questions have come to mind about the prophecy- what exactly is meant by "thrice defied him?" And WHY was Snape eavesdropping at the door? Was Trelawney not thought of as a fake before she was hired by Dumbledore? Rachel. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Sep 13 03:24:20 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 03:24:20 -0000 Subject: That darn Prophecy again.. Re: Thin air/Choices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140075 Cerwidwen: > I'm open to the idea that there is something other than a horcrux > sort of soul-piece that can be given by Voldemort, which can > shield Harry from the sort of destruction Dumbledore suffered. If > not a soul-piece, then something that the soul fragment within the > horcrux, can recognize. > Valky: > I have taken a walk in this direction. and written some thoughts > on it which I haven't posted yet. It still supposes that horcrux > magic was flying around Godrics Hollow that night, but Harry > doesn't necessarily end up with a piece of Voldies soul. Jen: I'm curious about this part: When you say horcrux magic, do you mean soul pieces flying around? Or that Voldemort started the process of making a horcrux prior to visitng GH, and was only waiting on the ripped soul portion to complete the spell? Meaning the horcrux would be 'in process' so to speak. (I like any theory where Harry doesn't end up with Voldie's stinkin' soul part ). Valky: > What happens instead is that Voldmeort falls victim to a curse he > put on his own body, to make it unkillable. The scar therfore is > where Harry gets touched by that curse which is in line with what > Hagrid told him in PS/SS, and Dumbledore too was a victim of this > curse which would explain the lightning shaped crack in the ring. Jen: So Voldemort attempts to protect himself with the same curse that he put on the ring. I'm not sure about the unkillable part--if he could make himself immortal with a curse, why would he bother with the Horcruxes? Or do you mean it was sort of a temporary curse? The idea of the scar on Harry's head and the same scar on the ring is good though, and in fact, leads me to another thought. If the ring got the scar when the soul piece was destroyed--did Harry, too, destroy a soul piece that night? One which flew through him and was destroyed upon leaving its container? I guess that doesn't further the plot though, if Harry didn't destroy an actual Horcrux that night. *Unless*--would it be possible for Voldemort to be souless now and still alive? (Sorry if I'm repeating something you, Saraquel or Ceridwen already went over--I'm still catching up there). If he lost his host soul that night, then all Harry has to do is destroy the remaining four Horcruxes and Voldemort's history. Valky: > Through his ignorance of the Love magic he failed to notice that > his curse intended to protect him from being killed by the hand of > another, was effectively mirrored back at him. The Scar itself is > the sign on Harrys innocent head showing not that he survived > Voldemorts Avada Kedavra, but that he survived *killing* > Voldemort, something even less possible than surviving Voldemort > trying to kill you. Jen: This part is a little unclear to me. What did happen to the AK, if its rebound off Lily's love sacrifice wasn't the cause of the scar? I think you're saying Voldemort's AK is what nearly killed him, but the curse he put on himself was what actually caused the scar. I'm just confused about the mechanics. Jen From iam.kemper at gmail.com Tue Sep 13 03:39:02 2005 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:39:02 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dealing with Dementors: Harry v Snape, Love v Happy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d4050912203934b553fd@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140076 > Carol: > It's possible that Hermione will face a Dementor in Book 7, fail > utterly to cast a Patronus because she can't concentrate on a happy > memory in the circumstances, and remember Snape's method. Valky: But did Snape ever actually elaborate on or teach this alternative method? I don't remember that he did at all. ...I don't believe that Snapes method of dealing with Dementors is what you'd call *light* magic. A better method than a Patronus would be necessary to explainhow the MOM keep control over the Dementors in Azkaban, and for Death Eaters and Voldemort to have so much more power over them than the average wizard. Basically it all adds up to not boding for this alternative of Snapes to be good magic. The MOM is given to using a bit of dirty work when they deem it justified, and Voldemort there is no question, would use whatever alternative was more powerful... It almost seems given that this alternative is Dark Magic. Kemper now: I doubt if either the MoM or Voldemort use Dark Magic to control Dementors, not because it seems counter-intuitive for Dark Magic to control Dark Beings, but rather because both the MoM and Voldemort seem to give the Dementors a Dark Promise: a supply of Happy Thoughts provided by supposed/convicted criminals (MoM) and by the innocent (Voldemort). Needless to say... I disagree with Valky's argument regarding Snapes way with Dementors. I'm not arguing that it's Bright Magic he uses, but it is definitely not Dark Magic. Kemper, who wonders what would happen if a Patronus was used against a Phoenix... and who is aware that Statistics can be counter-intuitive: there's like an 80% chance of two students having the same birthday in one class... that just seems wrong, though I know it to be true. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Tue Sep 13 04:18:06 2005 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 04:18:06 -0000 Subject: who bought the Peruvian instant darkness powder In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140077 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Auria" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Derek Thorburn" > wrote: > > One thing I've been wondering is who bought the Peruvian instant > darkness > > powder from Fred and George's shop. Auria wrote: > Good point. Perhaps Malfoy paid someone to do it....remember there > was a young boy in the shop who was going to steal something and > either Fred or George warned him against it (I dont have the book to > hand for the exact wording). > Auria Doddie here: It may have been that little boy, or anymalfoyfriend-polyjuiced...but when reading HBP I always thought it may have been theodore Knott... Why else introduce him into cannon so late in the series? Doddie From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Sep 13 05:17:27 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 05:17:27 -0000 Subject: That darn Prophecy again.. Re: Thin air/Choices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140078 > Cerwidwen: > > I'm open to the idea that there is something other than a horcrux > > sort of soul-piece that can be given by Voldemort, which can > > shield Harry from the sort of destruction Dumbledore suffered. If > > not a soul-piece, then something that the soul fragment within the > > horcrux, can recognize. > > > Valky: > > I have taken a walk in this direction. and written some thoughts > > on it which I haven't posted yet. It still supposes that horcrux > > magic was flying around Godrics Hollow that night, but Harry > > doesn't necessarily end up with a piece of Voldies soul. > > Jen: I'm curious about this part: When you say horcrux magic, do you > mean soul pieces flying around? Or that Voldemort started the > process of making a horcrux prior to visitng GH, and was only > waiting on the ripped soul portion to complete the spell? Meaning > the horcrux would be 'in process' so to speak. Valky: I think that the latter makes the most sense, don't you? I really can't claim to have a specific way of seeing it, but I do think that the few things Dumbledore seems to have deduced about Voldemorts intentions build a basic sort of picture that fits something like that. 1. Voldemort intended to make the his last Horcrux with Harry's death. 2. Voldemort thought that he was fulfilling the terms of the prophecy. It gives a vague image of Voldemort ritualising the actual act of killing Harry. Possibly laying some magical groundwork for the purpose of undermining the fortune the prophecy holds for him. I think it's an underestimation of Voldemort to merely assume he picked a prophecy boy and went forth gung-ho to destroy. Even Dumbledore recalls that Voldemort applied some interpretation to the words that he knew, according to Snape. So what I am saying is, Voldemort contemplated the meaning of "Power to Vanquish the Dark Lord" before he chose Harry and decided how to kill him. And Voldemort is, despite his faults and ignorance, brilliant in his own right, extraordinarily so. So leading to him having discerned in his own way what this power that could defeat him might be, and a plan that would effectively trick it up, overturn it. Except for his underestimation of Lily's sacrifice, he quite possibly came up with the right conclusion. This is supported by the prophecy, which speaks of more than a single power. It specifies a possible two, the power to vanquish the Dark Lord - the one Voldemort himself made a deliberate attempt to figure out, and the power the Dark Lord knows not - mentioned separately within the prophecy, given a distinct mention hence possibly a distinct subject. In summation, I have only a vague sort of ghost image of what exactly he did and how it backfired on him instead of Harry as he intended it to. However, I am sure that all indications point to the scar itself being a mark of Voldemorts own curse. A curse that is activated by an attempt on Voldemorts life, which sends death at the hand that has activated it. Kind of like a Mark of Cain. > Valky: > > What happens instead is that Voldmeort falls victim to a curse he > > put on his own body, to make it unkillable. The scar therfore is > > where Harry gets touched by that curse which is in line with what > > Hagrid told him in PS/SS, and Dumbledore too was a victim of this > > curse which would explain the lightning shaped crack in the ring. > > Jen: So Voldemort attempts to protect himself with the same curse > that he put on the ring. I'm not sure about the unkillable part--if > he could make himself immortal with a curse, why would he bother > with the Horcruxes? Or do you mean it was sort of a temporary curse? Valky: No I mean he used both, permanently. I do understand you're saying it's overkill, but I can't put that past Voldemort, personally. He's gone to extraordinary dramatic lengths, so many that he hardly remembers them all, and can't really be sure which one worked or how. I alos do think that there is a line between unkillable and immortal, its a shady one, but I think enugh to motivate someone psychotically obsessed with not dying to cover both angles. A Horcrux can be destroyed, and Voldemort himself is effectively a seventh Horcrux. His "immortality" is his soul being bound to the earth, however his body can still be destroyed. Hence although, as I said its a ridiculously exaggerated difference, it's still a difference enough for Voldemort to care. And it explains why he insisted his regenerated body was not as immortal as his old one, in at least one way. > Jen: > The idea of the scar on Harry's head and the same scar on the ring > is good though, and in fact, leads me to another thought. If the > ring got the scar when the soul piece was destroyed--did Harry, too, > destroy a soul piece that night? One which flew through him and was > destroyed upon leaving its container? I'm just confused about the mechanics. Valky: I have thought of a secnario similar to this, but I never much liked it. Also I am becoming rather attached to the idea that the scar shape is the sign of Voldemorts curse attacking. It confuses a little, because it seems to say that Harry is/was a Horcrux when he got the scar, but I actually think that is not quite right, and that rather the best way to look at it as to imagine Harry as a mirror. This kind of brings us back to the ritual or plan Voldemort had for killing Harry. Dumbledore sees that Voldemort chose Harry based on their likenesses, and if he is not wide of the mark, then perhaps it was their likenesses that Voldemort deduced held the key to vanquishing him. So he went to GH, with a deliberate plan to undermine Harry's likeness to him and use it to destroy him. This incorporates nicely Lily's eyes, I think, because it leans over into the notion that Harry saw in Voldemort that Voldemort saw himself in Harry. Although this seeing with the eyes of love, sort of thing might seem to be a perfectly innocuous and non magical precept, lets consider it to *be* magic. If it were, then Harry being able to see with his mothers eyes, would just be in his crib, innocently holding a mirror up to Voldemort, and Voldemort shoots an Avada Kedavra at it. Harry's eyes would then essentially reflect the magic straight back at Voldemort, and Voldemorts curse would activate sending death straight back at Harry. But the curse cannot kill Harry, because Harry has done nothing wrong, nothing at all. And the curse will only destroy the one who tried to kill Voldemort, so it bursts back out of Harry and straight at Voldemort. Voldemort might be the one the curse is meant to protect, but he is also the guilty party who tried to kill the protected, the curse is too crude really to see the difference and it kills Voldemort, in the meantime blowing up the house in it's confusion. It's still needs work, I know, but does this ring any truer to you? Valky From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Sep 13 08:04:55 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 08:04:55 -0000 Subject: Dealing with Dementors: Harry v Snape, Love v Happy In-Reply-To: <700201d4050912203934b553fd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140079 > Valky: > But did Snape ever actually elaborate on or teach this alternative > method? I don't remember that he did at all. > > ...I don't believe that Snapes method of dealing with Dementors is > what you'd call *light* magic. > > Kemper now: > I doubt if either the MoM or Voldemort use Dark Magic to control > Dementors, not because it seems counter-intuitive for Dark Magic to > control Dark Beings, Valky: Before I get on to the actual reply, I know that you're not using it as argument Kemper, but I really must say, I don't see how it is counter-intuitive for Dark Magic to be able to control forces of a Dark nature. I agree with that you're saying that light counters dark, and Dark counters Dark is counter-intuitive (too many counters? :D) but I was more leaning to a Dark Dog wagging Dark tail sort of magic, rather than counter magic, which does make sense to me. However, now that I have said all that, I have to confess I was way off in my last post. To start with I replied on the basis of some vague recollection I had of Snape mentioning a better way to handle Dementors in passing. IOW I totally misremembered the actual HBP quote. After scanning more carefully up thread I found the real quoted source and I'd like to apologise for my error. In case anyone wants to know my almost boring, and not very Snapeophile interpretation of the situation here is is: Harry's first triumph over so many Dementors was in POA, when he conjured the Patronus from across the lake. Now after this Harry relates to Hermione that he had discovered he *knew* he could do it because he already had done it. Hermione didn't understand. This could be the difference between Snapes method and Harry's method. Harry is possibly again relating in his Dementor Essay that he found it useful to draw on this inner sense of self-worth and belief. A kind of thing I can't really imagine Snape actually able to find out for himself, being somewhat aprroval/recgnition seeking, himself. So Snape compensates his lack of self-belief with some other concept, but Harry disagrees and argues, hey it works for me when I feel this way.. etc. Yeah. Valky From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Tue Sep 13 08:11:19 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 08:11:19 -0000 Subject: That darn Prophecy again.. Re: Thin air/Choices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140080 > > > Valky: > > > I have taken a walk in this direction. and written some thoughts > > > on it which I haven't posted yet. It still supposes that horcrux > > > magic was flying around Godrics Hollow that night, but Harry > > > doesn't necessarily end up with a piece of Voldies soul. > > 1. Voldemort intended to make the his last Horcrux with Harry's death. > 2. Voldemort thought that he was fulfilling the terms of the prophecy. > > It gives a vague image of Voldemort ritualising the actual act of > killing Harry. Possibly laying some magical groundwork for the purpose of undermining the fortune the prophecy holds for him. I agree about the piece of Voldie's soul floating around GH. My confusion starts with the fact that Voldemort killed James, but not Lily! Bearing in mind that to split the soul you need to commit murder, it does tend to suggest that Voldemort used James to split the soul (particularly if the soul is then floating around when Voldemort faces Harry). Which then leads to the probability that Voldemort did not intend to kill Harry. Surely if Voldemort was going to set up a Horcrux that night (other than Harry), he would have used Harry's death to split his soul!! > > In summation, I have only a vague sort of ghost image of what exactly > he did and how it backfired on him instead of Harry as he intended it > to. However, I am sure that all indications point to the scar itself > being a mark of Voldemorts own curse. A curse that is activated by an > attempt on Voldemorts life, which sends death at the hand that has > activated it. Kind of like a Mark of Cain. > I'm interested in how this ties in with Voldemort's possession of Harry in OOTP. Voldemort's possession of Harry seems to activate the curse, but it is Harry who is in pain, not Voldemort. Although, once again Harry's love seems to deflect the curse. More importantly is Voldemort's indication to DD, that if he killed Harry at this point, then he would kill Voldemort. Is Voldemort suggesting that DD knows that Harry is a Horcrux and can therefore rid the world of Voldemort if he is willing to sacrifice Harry? Brothergib From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Tue Sep 13 08:16:58 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 08:16:58 -0000 Subject: That darn Prophecy again.. Re: Thin air/Choices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140081 Saraquel: Who steps out for an hour or two in order to keep her own body and soul together on this earth by looking for work, and comes back to no less than 16 pages of speculation (I know, I printed out the whole thread, so that I could read and absorb!) As per usual, I have a bit of a different take on things. Valky wrote: >2. Do Horcruxes figure in the prophecy? Saraquel: HPB UK ed p203, end of House of Gaunt. `Sir is it important to know all this about Voldemort's past?' `Very important, I think,' said Dumbledore. `And it it's got something to do with the prophecy?' `It has everything to do with the prophecy.' Ok, so for what it's worth DD thinks that Voldemort's history, which is really the story of his Horcurxes, has everything to do with the prophecy. But is it the Horcruxes themselves that are important, or what they reveal about Voldemort's psyche? When LV was Vapormort, the only power he credited himself with having was the power to possess other bodies. Are we agreed that the thing that survived GH was the remains of LV's disfigured soul? If it was, then I'm going to make the assumption that this is the only power that the soul itself possesses (sorry, no pun intended), all other powers are not innate to the soul. In CoS, everything is done through possession of Ginny. The only power which we know for sure that Voldemort has passed on to Harry is parseltongue. So, heaven knows what powers are, but it appears that they do not reside in the soul. I suspect that they might reside in the hand ? after DD destroyed the Horcrux and his hand died his powers were greatly diminished ? Snape and I think DD says so. Correct me if I'm wrong. We also know that there is a connection through the mind which could imply legilimency and that being in close physical proximity to LV makes Harry's scar hurt. So let's say that something of LV is in Harry, hopefully there is enough of a loophole to say that it is not a piece of Voldemort's soul ? but exactly what it is I don't know. The eeew factor is about to come in here when I say it might be a bit of his hand or perhaps his brain ? or it might be something non-physical. I'm still desperately holding out for Harry not being an accidental horcrux ? can't you tell :-) And there is the quote in PS?, where DD says LV transferred some of his powers. The nature of Harry's access to LV seemed to change after GoF rebirth. When some of Harry was put into LV, his blood, Harry started to experience Voldemort's emotions. Now, I'm going to suggest a two way link here. That the reason Harry started to feel LVs emotions is because, emotions, as opposed to powers, are in the blood. The protection of Lily's sacrifice of Love, runs in his blood and therefore touches every part of his body. So through Harry's scar, there is access to each other's minds and through the blood connection there is access to feeling. At the moment, I think the access which LV has to Harry's feelings is being cut off by the charm which DD placed to seal Lily's sacrifice, but on the stroke of midnight, on the 31st July, that will cease and there will be two way communication on that level as well. Harry has been protected, shielded by that charm, his blood has been hidden behind it, so to speak, so up until now he can feel LVs emotions but LV hasn't had access to Harry. OK ? finally ? the prophecy. The one with the power to vanquish. Harry has the power of love in his heart and even at times of extreme anguish is able to feel love. Because Voldemort took some of Harry's blood, there is now a channel, through which love can flow into Voldemort even if he is not possessing Harry. A little piece of each of them resides in the other, and is still connected to its original owner. We know that DD keeps stressing the power of choice. So in book 7, Harry and Voldemort do not even have to meet for the battle to begin. Essentially, at first the battle is internal to both of them ? trying to fight off the increasing influence which the other is having through the links between them. Is this the `Neither can live while the other survives.' The will which Valky was talking about is being subjected to pressure from the foreign invader in both of them. They cannot live freely, express their free will, because of the presence of the other within them. So neither of them can live while the other (this is in fact referring to two separate things ? the other being the foreign bit.) survives. Either must die at the hand of the other is more problematic, because we don't really understand what dying is. But my guess is that it will involve, not just an internal battle for Harry to save his immortal soul, but a physical confrontation as well. this needs much more thouht before I commit it to a post. There were so many interesting threads to follow up from the discussion, especially about GH, but I have been invited to dinner tonight and cannot spend more time at the moment. However ? to give you a taster of what I want to introduce into our considerations ? I have tucked away two instances of Hermione commenting on some of the twins magic, and I am wondering if one might be relevant to sorting out GH. Forgive me, no time to search for canon reference ? the comment that she makes about the vanishing head hat and the fact that the charmed area extends *beyond* the object charmed. The second, which might prove useful in the battle with LV, is in HBP ? where you can buy a daydream which lasts for half and hour ? presumably you actually enter a faux reality, but feel you are in it. Is a Horcrux a charmed object? I think it might well be. If LV was trying to make a Horcrux at GH, did Lily step into the space around something that was being charmed. Do you see what I mean? Might that have caused something to happen? I also have a problem with the whole notion of Harry surviving an AK. If Lily stepped in front of him, then she took the hit of the AK and it never got to Harry. On numerous occasions in the battle between LV and DD in the Ministry, things or magical birds came between people and an AK. But no-one is suggesting that Harry or DD `survived' these AKs. Got to go now. Will have more time tomorrow to discuss points that people made. Sorry for not directly addressing your comments folks, it was a great read! Saraquel From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Sep 13 10:56:45 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:56:45 -0000 Subject: sirius black In-Reply-To: <006301c5b7af$b6e99b90$be24f204@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140082 > > Sherry adds: > > I also think the scene is in there for great dramatic effect. to make it > more of a shock, when we find out Sirius is not the bad guy. But yeah, he's > trying to keep Harry from killing him before he can explain. Finwitch: I also noticed few things about that scene. First words we hear from Sirius Black express concern for Ron's injured leg (when Ron's talking about killing!). And, before Lupin comes, and a bit afterwords, he speaks of 'the rat' all the time. Obsessed, was he not? The obsession that got him out of Azkaban... Lupin, I believe, used Legilimency on Sirius, speaking aloud what he learns. Which is, of course, why he *knows* which is speaking the truth here... and I think Dumbledore did that when *he* spoke with Sirius. Of course, the event is described by Harry who doesn't know of that line of magic... Snape and Lupin were the *really* dangerous people there. Look at how Snape proposes to take the werewolf out - and later, Lupin volunteered to do that... I don't blame Sirius - first 12 years with Dementors, Obsessed about getting Peter - just made up with his friend and meeting his godson -- he was in no condition to know what phase of Moon it was. And I'd say he trusted his friend to say something if it was full moon... The kids - well, they're kids and can't be expected to bear responsibility over adults and well, Pettigrew was the evil villain there... But Snape&Lupin, planning to take this werewolf out of the tunnel, thus endangering the three kids AND, by extention, all at Hogwarts who haven't learned animagi? Well, I suppose they *both* were under the DADA-teacher curse here. Snape *did* have the position for a day, did he not? Finwitch From maliksthong at yahoo.com Tue Sep 13 10:56:56 2005 From: maliksthong at yahoo.com (Chys Lattes) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:56:56 -0000 Subject: Necklace at #12 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140083 aussie/norbertsmummy: > > OOTP Ch 23 - when Hermione is leaving a Christmas gift in Kreacher's > cupboard, it says, "In the far cornerglinted small objects and coins > that Harry guessed Kreaterhad saved, magpie-like, from Sirius's > purge ... " The haul included photos that were thrown away over > summer, so, Kreatcher didn't mind sifting through the garbage. > > Chys: Who else mentioned a Magpie-like tendancy? -DD mentioned that LV was like this, to Harry, about Horcruxes. (After his talk and the pensieve scene with the mouthpiece, right?) Chys From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Tue Sep 13 11:25:22 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 11:25:22 -0000 Subject: the horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140084 mojonono8: I can't find any place where people want to discuss the horcruxes. I am obsessed with the unknown ones. JKR mentioned in an interview that she was expecting someone to post the ones that are "revealed" in HBP. Amiable Dorsai: So, let's post a list. Just off the top of my head, we have: Known Horcruxes: Tom Riddle's diary--killed Slytherin's locket--active The Gaunt's ring--killed Hufflepuff's Cup--active Mentioned by Dumbledore as possibility: Nagini Something of Ravenclaw's Something of Gryffindor's Fan speculation: Sorting Hat Sword of Gryffindor Harry Harry's scar Ginny (scotched by JKR) What have I missed? I remember that someone mentioned an object Harry saw in the Room of Requirement while it was in "Attic" mode, but I don't recall what it was. Amiable Dorsai From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Sep 13 11:29:22 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 11:29:22 -0000 Subject: the horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140085 > vmonte : > Regulus was probably killed right after he and Kreacher came back with > the locket. No wonder Harry has to live a Sirius's house next year. > The locket is either in Kreacher's sleeping area or with the items > Mundungus stole. Finwitch: You know -- I think the locket is, one way or other, a part of Harry's inheritance from Sirius. He will, therefore, destroy *this* Horcrux during summer. If Hogwarts opens, Harry will go as a student, if not, he'll go anyway... he does know of a secret passage, remember? AND Dobby and Kreacher are there. You know, I think we will, once again, follow the pattern: Summer with some magic at Privet Drive - Off to Hogwarts 1st September - Halloween, Christmas, Easter, exams, final showdown. Harry does have his Invisibility Cloak and a couple of house-elves to pick up at Hogwarts, at least... Now, I think that Harry will destroy a Horcrux during summer, one at Halloween (say TomRiddle alias Voldemort left it in the Chamber of Secrets-- where one can enter only with parseltongue...) - one at Christmas, which may or may not be at Hogwarts. Probably not. During Easter, one more Horcrux is destroyed. (Harry will learn where they are, as well as some magic in between) - then Harry has his NEWTs to take care of - and then he'll hunt down Voldemort. Finwitch From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Tue Sep 13 11:46:06 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 11:46:06 -0000 Subject: the horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140087 Finwitch: > You know, I think we will, once again, follow the pattern: Summer with > some magic at Privet Drive... Amiable Dorsai: So if Voldemort intended to make his sixth Horcrux at Godric's Hollow, and it wasn't to be Harry, but some object, what happened to the object? Did Hagrid grab it? Did he tuck it in the basket with Harry? Is Petunia in possesion of some priceless artifact of the Founders? Or is it waiting at Godric's Hollow for Harry to come back and find it? In either case, does anyone think there will be something about the object that gives Harry a clue to finding Horcruxes? Amiable Dorsai From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Sep 13 11:53:26 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 11:53:26 -0000 Subject: Lily and Mrs. Longbottom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140088 vmonte: I think that there are enough clues from JKR's interviews that someone else was at Godric's Hollow on the night the Potter parents were murdered. If someone else was there then they know that Voldemort was turned into Vapormort. If a DE was there I'm wondering why the Longbottoms were later attacked? Why would the DEs think that Neville's parents would know where Voldemort was if someone in their camp already saw him turn into Vapormort? It makes no sense. Maybe the Longbottoms were tortured for a different reason. We know a lot about James friends, but we haven't heard of Lily's friends yet. It would make sense that Neville's mother and Lily were friends, since they both belonged to the Order and were pregnant at the same time-- they had things in common. If a DE was at GH that night they might have seen, or figured out, what happened to Harry. This person saw Harry turn into a horcrux, but they don't understand why or how it was possible. This person knows that it probably had something to do with Lily's sacrifice. Harry was already 1.5 years old. Did he babble some baby snake talk? He later sends the DEs to the Longbottoms to get information. Maybe Mrs. Longbottom knows what Lily did? Notice how the Longbottoms were never killed? I always wondered why? Was this DE afraid that Mrs. Longbottom might have protected Neville in the same way Lily did? If so, this could be why they were never killed. I also want to know why Lily was not an original target for death that night. Voldemort was going to kill Harry and James but not Lily. Why? Did they want her for someone, something? Or worse, is it possible that someone hated Lily more than even James? Did they want her to live knowing that they were responsible for her son and husband's death? I wonder, did she ever call this person a coward? Did they then set her up to be a coward herself? It could very well be that Harry's weakness is his eyes because this person sees only Lily in Harry, not James. Vivian From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 13 12:23:44 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:23:44 -0000 Subject: Draco the Death Eaters and Voldemort (was: Re: Draco's culpability...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140089 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > >>Marianne: > > Draco has always had the option of refusing to play Voldemort's > > game. Sure, he's held at gun (wand) point. He can still always > > say "No." Had he refused at some point during the school year to > > continue on his quest to kill DD, then that would be the end. Sure, > > he might have died and in addition Narcissa may have been killed. > > But, that would have undercut Vmort's designs on killing DD, and > > would perhaps have benefitted the WW to a great degree than what > > has happened at least in part due to Draco's pursuit of his quest. > > Betsy Hp: > Don't you think you're asking a tremendous amount of Draco here? > How many sixteen year olds do you know would be willing to sacrifice > not only their lives but the lives of their parents for anything? > Especially for a philosophy they've been raised to despise? > Remember, as far as Draco is concerned, the Order, or folks of that > ilk, put his father in jail. > > Honestly, do you think Harry would allow his mother to die to save > Snape's life, if he was faced with such a choice? Gosh, would Harry > allow his mother to die even to save Dumbledore? What would you > give your mother's life for? > > (This is another thing that's interesting to me. JKR doesn't just > give Draco a choice between his life and Dumbledore's. She throws > Draco's mom into the mix. She's practically making Draco *noble*. > Or at the very least, giving him one heck of a dilemma.) Marianne: I didn't say it would be an easy choice. I agree that Draco is stuck between the ultimate rock and the mother of all hard places. Still, it is a choice. And Draco has always had the option of going to Dumbledore and laying out the whole plan to him. IOW, asking help of the one person he knows, in spite of his upbringing, has been Vmorte's most implacable and effective foe. He chose not to do that, either. I am not entirely unsympathetic towards Draco in HBP. The scene in the bathroom did disturb me. And I think you're probably right. JKR will probably pull him back from the edge of evil and give us, if not completely Redeemed!Draco, then at least Chastened!Draco. Too bad - he seemed almost on his way to becoming a viable bad guy. Marianne From altered.earth at ntlworld.com Tue Sep 13 13:01:30 2005 From: altered.earth at ntlworld.com (digger) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:01:30 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: the horcruxes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4326CDAA.9090308@ntlworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140090 amiabledorsai wrote: > Finwitch: > > > >>You know, I think we will, once again, follow the pattern: Summer with >>some magic at Privet Drive... > > > > Amiable Dorsai: > So if Voldemort intended to make his sixth Horcrux at Godric's Hollow, > and it wasn't to be Harry, but some object, what happened to the object? > > Did Hagrid grab it? Did he tuck it in the basket with Harry? Is > Petunia in possesion of some priceless artifact of the Founders? > > Or is it waiting at Godric's Hollow for Harry to come back and find it? > > In either case, does anyone think there will be something about the > object that gives Harry a clue to finding Horcruxes? > > Amiable Dorsai digger: Hmmmm. If LV had a valuable object with him at Godric's Hollow, which he intended to turn into a horcrux after killing Harry, don't you think he'd have gone and retrieved it once he got his body back? I too toyed with the idea that Petunia had somehow got hold of a horcrux previously in the possession of Lily - perhaps Hufflepuff's cup - and put it in a glass cabinet, tucked behind Vernon and Dudley's boxing trophies ;-) Then I discarded the idea as too improbable. I had Petunia giving it to Harry before he leaves Privet Drive for the last time. LOL. digger -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.23/99 - Release Date: 12/09/2005 From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Sep 13 13:09:47 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:09:47 -0000 Subject: Snape fiddled while Harry burned? was Re: Spinner's End-- In-Reply-To: <004d01c5b810$9393ed60$be24f204@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140091 > > Sherry now: > > But that's just it, isn't it? Of course, after the absolutely accurate vision he had of Arthur's attack, anyone who was using their brains would have to *know* Harry would believe it. He was 15, hardly a very rational age under the best of circumstances, and he certainly hadn't had the best of circumstances that year. If they didn't believe Harry would believe it, they were idiots! Pippin: I think Hermione would be very insulted to be told fifteen wasn't a very rational age . And she was with Harry. In fact Snape may have seen in her mind that she felt the whole thing was bloody unlikely. It isn't only Dumbledore who can forget what it's like to be fifteen. JKR is careful not to put any of the Weasleys at GP that night. None of the crew who are there have teenage children or siblings at home. Lupin and Sirius know Harry far less well than we do, and they see him as more cautious and far more humble than James. Harry has been telling Sirius to be careful and not do anything rash all year -- why on earth would anyone think that Harry, who was apparently frantic to communicate his vision to the Order, would suddenly forget about doing that and rush off to the MoM? Especially when he's been warned that the visions might be misleading? It's only Snape, who *does* see James in Harry, who realizes what Harry would do. Neri is free to think that anyone but Snape would have mobilized the Order at once -- in hindsight it's always easy to see that help should have been sent in sooner. But the fact that it shows up late doesn't mean there was a deliberate attempt to delay it. We are told that Snape did everything he could to get help to Harry once he realized there was an emergency. That he didn't realize it soon enough is a mistake that's been made by far better men than he. Pippin From quigonginger at yahoo.com Tue Sep 13 13:25:30 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:25:30 -0000 Subject: Ways to treat werewolf bites? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140092 Molley: > SS/PS on page 220, chapter 15, > Nicolas Flamel: "The next morning in DADA, while copying down different ways > of treating werewolf bites, (snip) The kids had just discovered who Nicolas Flamel > was and at this point in the series (book 1), the presumption would be that > a werewolf bite from a transformed, in- the- fur werewolf is just another > magical beast injury sustained as a consequence of living in the wizarding > world - easily corrected. Or is there a difference between "treating" a > werewolf bite and "curing" it? Ginger (late as usual): I'm going on a guess here, but since there is no cure, I'd have to say that there are some sort of treatments. Perhaps they studied wolfsbane at this point, but the quote says "treating werewolf bites" rather than treating the lycanthropy itself. Going out further on a limb, I'm going to speculate that there may be certain circumstances where a treatment is viable. Quote from a completely imaginary text: Treatment of Werewolf Bites In certain cases, a bite may be treated on the scene. These are rare, but the well-trained wizard could save a life by using one of the following procedures. 1) Amputation. If the bite is on a finger or toe, the offending digit may be removed with a painless severing charm (see also Fantastic Beasts, removal of crup tails). This is only effective if the bite is fresh and the werewolf saliva has not traveled beyond the digit into the blood stream. The offending digit may be dried and powdered and spread around henhouses to deter wolves. It may also be served with a pinch of cumin over couscous. 2) Removal of saliva from the blood stream. If the bite is on an arm or leg, but the saliva has not yet travelled, a tourniquet may be placed above the wound, and the wound sliced open. The victim should be placed in a prone position so that the offending limb is below the level of the heart. The rescuer must check his/her mouth for cuts or wounds, and if there are none, may proceed to suck the blood out of the would and spit it out. DO NOT SWALLOW. The victim is in no state to care if you truely love him/her. If the blood has travelled into the rest of the limb, amputation may be necessary. In all cases, the victim should be taken to St. Mungo's as soon as possible. It is best to have one person stay with the victim, whilst another apparates or flies to St. Mungo's where portkey transport can be arranged. Anyway, that's my take on possible treatments. Maybe it's right, maybe it isn't. Maybe JKR will write a Magical First Aid Guide. Ginger, just going with the thought stream today. From muellem at bc.edu Tue Sep 13 14:02:50 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:02:50 -0000 Subject: the horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140093 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amiabledorsai" wrote: > Amiable Dorsai: > So, let's post a list. Just off the top of my head, we have: > > Known Horcruxes: > Tom Riddle's diary--killed > Slytherin's locket--active > The Gaunt's ring--killed > Hufflepuff's Cup--active > > Mentioned by Dumbledore as possibility: > Nagini > Something of Ravenclaw's > Something of Gryffindor's > > Fan speculation: > Sorting Hat > Sword of Gryffindor > Harry > Harry's scar > Ginny (scotched by JKR) > > What have I missed? I remember that someone mentioned an object Harry > saw in the Room of Requirement while it was in "Attic" mode, but I > don't recall what it was. > > Amiable Dorsai I think it also could be Tom Riddle's Special Award from the School. The one that Ron had to polish over & over again in CoS, after he vomited slugs all over it. colebiancardi From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Tue Sep 13 14:13:35 2005 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:13:35 -0000 Subject: the horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140094 >> mojonono8: >> I can't find any place where people want to discuss >> the horcruxes. I am obsessed with the unknown ones. >> JKR mentioned in an interview that she was expecting >> someone to post the ones that are "revealed" in HBP. > > Amiable Dorsai: > So, let's post a list. Just off the top of my head, > we have: > > Known Horcruxes: > Tom Riddle's diary--killed > Slytherin's locket--active Notes on locket: 1) Might or might not be an active horcrux. RAB note says RAB planned to destroy it. 2) Significant fan speculation that this is the "heavy locket none of them could open" that the cleanup crew discovered in the drawing room at 12 Grimmauld Place. This could also be what JKR was referring to in the publication-day interview when she said "I'm prepared to bet you now that before the week is out at least one of the Horcruxes will have been correctly identified by careful re-readers of the books." > The Gaunt's ring--killed > Hufflepuff's Cup--active Note: It is only Dumbledore's speculation that the cup is a horcrux, though that speculation is at least well-grounded in the reasonably good evidence that Tom acquired the cup at the same time he acquired the locket. > Mentioned by Dumbledore as possibility: > Nagini > Something of Ravenclaw's > Something of Gryffindor's > > Fan speculation: > Sorting Hat > Sword of Gryffindor > Harry > Harry's scar > Ginny (scotched by JKR) > > What have I missed? I remember that someone mentioned > an object Harry saw in the Room of Requirement while it > was in "Attic" mode, but I don't recall what it was. I can't remember who suggested it, but the specific speculation was about the tiara that Harry uses to mark the location of the HBP book in chapter 24. There was also more general speculation that one or more horcruxes -- whatever they are -- might be concealed in this "Hiding Place" version of the Room of Requirement. I think I also have read speculation about Tom's award for special services to the school being a horcrux. -- Matt From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Sep 13 14:27:10 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:27:10 -0000 Subject: Dealing with Dementors: Harry v Snape, Love v Happy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140095 Valky wrote: >snip< > > This could be the difference between Snapes method and Harry's method. > Harry is possibly again relating in his Dementor Essay that he found > it useful to draw on this inner sense of self-worth and belief. A kind > of thing I can't really imagine Snape actually able to find out for > himself, being somewhat aprroval/recgnition seeking, himself. So Snape > compensates his lack of self-belief with some other concept, but Harry > disagrees and argues, hey it works for me when I feel this way.. etc. Potioncat: So it could be that rather than having a completely different spell, Snape has a different approach to conjuring a Patronus. Good idea! I thought it was an interesting aside. Harry writing an essay disagreeing with Snape's approach. Very teenager...like writing an essay in social studies that counters the establishment's view. It also made a nice contrast again, to how eager Harry accepts the Prince's ideas when the Prince offers a different way of doing something, but how resistent he is to Snape's way of doing things. From elbarad at aol.com Tue Sep 13 15:11:28 2005 From: elbarad at aol.com (Rebecca Hoskins) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:11:28 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End--further evidence for DDsMan!Snape?? Dawn. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140096 > > Neri: > > As to the hour of first light of dawn we don't > > have canon from JKR, but in our timeline we used a > > very early hour (IIRC around 3:00 AM). I can't believe > > JKR thinks it's even earlier, and if she thinks it's > > later then this would make the time Snape delayed even longer. First light of dawn could have been even earlier than that. Given that the Hogwarts express travels from 11am til at least 7pm in the evening, with no stops I can only presume that Hogwarts is situated at least in the middle of Scotland (London to Edinburgh is generally about 5-6 hrs journey with Great North Eastern railways). Now I went to University at St Andrews in Fife, and many was the time that I'd be returning from the union at twoish in the morning and it was already thinking about getting light. In fact, by late June it never really bothers getting properly dark in the first place. At my in-laws house near Aberdeen the cockerals would frequently wake us up between two and half past in the summer. I wouldn't imagine Hogwarts being any futher north than this. Given that Hogwarts is probably further north than Fife it's quite likely that first light would be before three am, but certainly not before two am. If any posters live in this area and could confirm this (since it's a fair few years since I lived there) I'd be greatful. Rebecca From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Sep 13 15:31:05 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:31:05 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End--further evidence for DDsMan!Snape?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140097 > houyhnhnm: > > The "cool line of pale green" sounds more like the beginning of civil > twilight (which would push the time Harry arrives in DD's office back > as much as an hour) than it does like sunrise. But I give you your > five hours. > Neri: The 3:00 AM estimation (3:04 to be precise) *is* the beginning of civil twilight as computed by an astronomical software, see the original timeline: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/108037 and the up-thread posts by Shawn and Steve. But as you say it hardly matters. Unless JKR thinks it's as early as 1:00 AM it doesn't significantly reduce the time Snape must have waited. > So when did the Order arrive at the Ministry? How long did the flight > to London take? How long was TeamHarry looking for the Hall of > Prophecies? How long did they do battle with the DEs before the Order > showed up? The only way to gauge time between the "bloodred > sunset" when Harry's thestral takes off and Harry's arrival in DD's > office is to judge by the amount of action that takes place. It > doesn't add up. Not for Snape. Not for Rowling, IMO. Neri: It can always add up for Rowling. This is because we don't know the travel time from Scotland to London by thestral. It's specifically mentioned in canon that Harry couldn't estimate it, so it can be as low as 45 minutes and as high as 3 hrs, and JKR can choose any number that would make the other times fit. In my timeline above I actually chose a relatively short travel time on purpose, in order to give Snape the benefit of doubt. A longer travel time would make the other times look more probable, and of course increase the time of Snape's delay even further. > > My reason for not being suspicious of Snape does not hinge on whether > or not he *could* have notified the Order sooner of Harry's failure to > return from the forest, but whether he would have felt he had > reason to. > > Snape contacted Sirius "at once". (And we don't know the content of > the message) Sirius was fine. What was Snape going to do then? > Contact Grimmauld Place again and tell them "Potter's channeling > the DL again and he's gone off into the forest". They're going to be > like "Whatta you want us to do about it?" Until a fair amount of time > had elapsed, surely there was no reason to suspect that there was a > problem. Harry left with Umbridge after all. > Neri: Actually, my main point too was never the timeline, but Snape's actions (or rather lack of action) immediately after he left Umbridge's office. Some of his reasons to suspect there was a problem were detailed in: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/108146 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/117180 Some of his possible routs for action are suggested in: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/108223 (and ensuing thread). All the above was written before HBP. In HBP we further encountered: 1. Order members regularly assisting with security inside Hogwarts, apparently without most of the students being the wiser. This makes calling in Order backup a much more plausible action for Snape. 2. McGonagall's fire can be set to bring people into the Castle directly. Even if Umbridge took care to disconnect this option in all the fireplaces in Hogwarts during OotP, I doubt she would disconnect it in her own fireplace. Once Snape knew she's in the forest he could probably use it to bring in Sirius (disguised as a dog) and Tonks (disguised as anybody) to help him. > houyhnhnm: > > How could Snape possibly let Bellatrix know he had alerted the Order > AT ALL, early or late and regardless of his true loyalties. That > would be Christmas come early for her--and Lucius. > Neri: As I wrote, it wouldn't be politic of him to bring up this whole issue, which is probably why he didn't, although Voldy must know that Snape needed to alert the Order at some point if he were to maintain his cover. In general double-agent Snape had to play a very delicate game there in order to maintain both his covers. Alerting the Order too early would make Voldy angry. Alerting the order too late (or not at all) might make Dumbledore suspicious. In effect the timing he compromised on proved to be accurate within the minute, though this was probably more JKR's sense for drama. Neri From allilova at davidson.edu Tue Sep 13 07:22:11 2005 From: allilova at davidson.edu (strina_brulyo) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 07:22:11 -0000 Subject: Hepzibah Smith, Tobias Snape, & Nathaniel Hawthorne... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140098 Hello everybody, OK, I'm anything but a regular contributor to forums; however, I really needed to share this one with you all. First off, there's no doubt in my mind that Snape was and remains loyal to Dumbledore, so if there're any Snape-haters out there -- you might be a little overwhelmed by this post because I don't even mention any of the mysteries surrounding the guy's allegiances here... I've been entertaining myself recently with a bunch of popular and not-so-popular "conspiracy" theories, like the Unicorn Patronus or the Asphodel-and-Wormwood ones. These are well-researched and original ideas, and I so wanted to play the literary Sherlock Holmes and come up with something like that on my own:-))... So there it came, very unexpectedly, today. It's not anything close to a coherent theory, but if you could share any thoughts you might have, that would be great! This is how it all started. First, it occurred to me that, given the importance of Severus as a character, and given JK Rowling's love of names, it is entirely possible that the names Tobias [Snape] and Eileen [Prince] were not picked at random. I looked them up in a few web sites that dealt with the history and meanings of names. "Eileen" was mostly cited as originating from the Greek "Helen" and referring to "Light." Well, I've always considered Eileen to be a pretty name anyway (never mind Ron who says something to the effect of "She was not a pretty":). So Snape's mom was likely a gentle person, in my opinion, especially since we've seen her frightened before, in OotP. "Tobias" presented a greater challenge, however. It is said to mean "God is good;" it's a Biblical name... and it seems to have been particularly popular with the Puritans. Right away I imagined an angry Tobias Snape infuriated with his wife and son for being wizards, kind of like our Uncle Vernon, or kind of like the minister dad from Salem whose daughters were suspected of witchcraft (he was a real person also seen in "The Crucible," "Moi, Tituba sorciere," etc.). I googled "Tobias" and "Puritans" together, and I quickly came across the full online text of one of Nathaniel Hawthorne's short stories called "The Gentle Boy." It's about a little Quaker boy called Ibrahim who's taken in by a Puritan couple. The man's name is Tobias, the woman's name is Dorothy. Puritans would often shun and apprehend Quakers, and even accuse them of witchcraft. Little Ibrahim's fate is no different. The entire community loathes him, and the parents' hatred is naturally transmitted to their children, who subject him to cruel torture. He grows increasingly solitary, yet (I'm only talking about Ibrahim here:) he lacks all malice... The father never turns abusive or anything, but, unlike the mother, he's quite sensitive to the Public Opinion, and, at the beginning, he feels rather uneasy when he's seen with the boy in public... moreover, until then, he'd held very good positions within the Puritan community, and now these positions are shaken. JKR could be making a small reference to these characters, couldn't she? What do you think? I went on to explore a little more (whoever cares about the Chemistry test on Wednesday??;). So there's also Nathaniel Hawthorne himself. Now, I'm from Bulgaria, and even though I went to an English-language high school, where we once discussed Hawthorne and an excerpt from his Scarlet Letter, I remembered next to nothing when it came to that author... I'd even forgotten that he was from Salem and how that had influenced his works a great deal. Salem!!! It's not only the birthplace, however, that I found intriguing. Hawthorne's father died when his son was four, so the future writer- to-be lived with his reclusive mother, in whom he would find emotional solace for many years to come. At one point he became quite isolated himself, and he would rarely leave the house (does this remind you of a particular teenager staring at the ceiling in his dark bedroom?). In his correspondence, he once confessed: "I have locked myself in a dungeon, and I can't find the key to get out." Dungeon. Hmm. What caught my attention next was the often-cited moral of Hawthorne's novel The House of the Seven Gables (which, regrettably, I haven't read): "...the wrongdoing of one generation lives into the successive ones, and (...) becomes a pure and uncontrollable mischief." Isn't that an important part of Snape's philosophy (and perhaps one of his greatest shortcomings), for it is so difficult for him to see in Harry anyone other than James? Then, as I was looking into some of the themes and characters of The House of the Seven Gables (two themes were "class distinctions" and "witchcraft"), I was amazed to discover the existence of a female character by the name of Hepzibah Pyncheon. She was an old maid of "aristocratic" origins: "Her former status is dependent upon wealth (which no longer belongs to her) and a legacy of belonging to a leading family in Salem" (http://www.hawthorneinsalem.org/page/11494/). In Chapter 2, she's "trying with pathetic results to beautify herself..." In Chapter 5: "On a tour of the "dusky" Seven Gables, Hepzibah describes to Phoebe some of the darker histories of the house and hints to a treasure to be found within the house." Ah, and there are chapters entitled "The First Customer" or "The Guest." If our rich, old, single (she was single, wasn't she?), remarkable descendant of Helga Hufflepuff, Hepzibah Smith, is not a direct reference to Hepzibah Pyncheon, then, as we say back home, I'm a tramway. I need to read that novel, however. :) So it seems quite clear to me that Rowling has planted some Hawthorne clues in Book 6. Or are they really clues? Where are they supposed to lead us? Perhaps they are meant to help us gain insight into the Snape family before the last book of the series comes out? I could only guess... What are your ideas? (If you ever managed to read through this gargantuan post!!:) strina_brulyo From Peaches_without_cream at yahoo.com Tue Sep 13 13:24:51 2005 From: Peaches_without_cream at yahoo.com (peaches_without_cream) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:24:51 -0000 Subject: That darn Prophecy again.. Re: Thin air/Choices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140099 Saraquel: > Is a Horcrux a charmed object? I think it might well be. If LV > was trying to make a Horcrux at GH, did Lily step into the space > around > something that was being charmed. Do you see what I mean? Might > that have caused something to happen? Peaches here: Hello all,brand new posting to the board. My question is this: if an act of extreme evil can create a horcrux might an act of extreme love do the same? When Lily sacrificed herself to save Harry, could a bit of her soul have been retained in Harry? I've been looking at all the references to Harry having "Lily's eyes", and the saying goes "the eyes are the window to the soul." Peaches From elbarad at aol.com Tue Sep 13 15:44:52 2005 From: elbarad at aol.com (Rebecca Hoskins) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:44:52 -0000 Subject: Voldemort good/bad. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140100 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > Rebecca wrote: > "But I do have to stress that an upbringing such as (Tom's) is not > guaranteed to bring about the development of a psychopath." > > Del replies: > Agreed, absolutely. > > From what I gathered, the creation of a psychopath apparently requires > the combination of three elements: > > 1. A wrong nature > > 2. A wrong nurture > > 3. A wrong opportunity > > Tom had all three of them, according to canon: > > 1. His inborn nature was not normal. We are told that he didn't cry > much as a baby, and the feeling I get from the orphanage's director's > explanations is that he always made his caretakers slightly uneasy. > > 2. As we discussed previously, he most probably never had a true > chance of bonding and experiencing love. > > 3. He was powerfully magical, and he had nobody to keep a check on > him, so he was able very early in life to exert his power on others. > > Had any one of those three circumstances been different, things would > probably have turned very differently. > > Rebecca wrote: > "Yet (David Pelzer) has somehow managed to become a normal and > emotionally sound individual, fully capable of love and generosity. A > lack of love at a young age can bring about some terrible problems, > but it is not certain that this will happen, as David Pelzer can testify." > > Del replies: > I think that David Pelzer probably did have problems (though I am not > implying psychopathic traits, don't get me wrong), but that he found > it in himself to overcome them. I can't imagine that someone with his > background wouldn't have any problems at all. > > His books sound fascinating by the way. > > Rebecca wrote: > "I still maintain that Harry would not have become like Voldemort if > he had been raised in Tom Riddle's stead. Neither would Tom Riddle > have become a brave and generous boy like Harry if he'd been loved for > 14 months and then raised by the Dursley's." > > Del replies: > I don't think there's any way we can know for sure. The second > proposal I very much agree with, because I think that it would have > taken much more than 14 months of love to correct the faults in Tom's > inborn personality, and also that he would have had to be raised in a > wizarding family all his youth, so his use of magic would be kept > under control. > > But as for Harry... He has a strong capacity to hate when he wants to, > his father was quite a bully, his maternal aunt isn't a model of > niceness either. So I don't know what kind of inborn personality he > was born with. We also have reasons to believe that a significant part > of the love he feels now comes from his mother, not from himself. And > when under the strong negative influence of LV in OoP, he did give in > once in a while to his anger and even to cruelty. He even goes as far > as threatening to use magic on his Muggle cousin, which is > disturbingly reminiscent of what Tom did as a child (probably not a > coincidence, though). So between the many, various, and sometimes > diametrically opposed influences Harry is living under, I find it > pretty hard to determine what exactly Harry's own original personality > looked like. But if I had to bet, I'd say he didn't have the right > nature to become a psychopath. Things like the way he instinctively > offered to share with Ron in the train in PS/SS make me feel like his > innate nature is too much on the good side to be perverted to the > point of psychopathy. > > Rebecca wrote: > "But I cannot think of any circumstances under which Tom Riddle could > have been raised to produce a 'nice', 'brave', 'selfless' or 'caring' > person. I don't believe that it was in his nature." > > Del replies: > Once again, we will never know. But I think it is too harsh a > condemnation to say that some kids out there will never be any of > those things, no matter what kind of help and upbringing they receive! > Being nice, brave, selfless and caring are not just things that one > can have as an innate makeup. They can all be learned. Most people do > have to learn one or several of those qualities, in fact. Many > unpleasant kids learn to be nice when they feel loved and appreciated. > Many scaredy people learn to be brave when they find the right support > to accompany them. Many ego-centric people learn to be selfless when > somehow forced to engage in service projects. And many cold people > learn to be caring, when thrown in many different situations. There's > no way I would say that even a kid like Tom couldn't learn those > things, and learn to like them too! Isn't it what "A Christmas Carol" > is about after all? About the fact that even the most embittered, > cold-hearted people can change? And my Christian values most > definitely support the concept that *everyone* can change their > nature, if they can find the right kind of help before it is too late. Del You make some good points Del. I had felt it necessary to post on the subject when I'd heard comments on how Harry and Tom could easily have taken each other's places, ie if Tom had had that 15 months of love and Harry hadn't. And that it was only chance that Harry was 'nice' and that Voldemort was 'evil'. I felt strongly that it was not quite so simple as this, and you seem to agree with me. Your point on not giving up on Voldemort is a good one. I said that I could think of no circumtstances under which Voldemort could have become a nice, generous etc person. I maintain it is unlikely, but you are right that highly unlikely things do happen, and that it not good to give up on people. And also that Harry, like Darth Vader, probably has it in him to take that wrong path (to chose the dark path for 'good' reasons, if you like). It is only the choices that he makes that keep him on the side of good. And there are moments when he stumbles into the dark: his deep hatred of Snape and Voldemort, his attmepted crucio on Bellatrix and sectumsempra on Snape. There are times in fact when he almost seems to be travelling on a knife edge. Of course, we can all read this from the comfort of our armchairs knowing that this is a children's story and that Harry will remain 'good'. But if this were real life I can see how Harry has taken a path that could lead him to living a 'dark' life. Rebecca From rose-stephanie at gmx.net Tue Sep 13 13:32:06 2005 From: rose-stephanie at gmx.net (marvellous_melbourne_steph) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:32:06 -0000 Subject: Did Snape think Draco was to kill Harry instead of Dumbledore? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140101 Hi there, Has anyone ever wondered if Snape pretended to know about the plan, but figured that it was Harry who was going to be killed? Maybe I missed something, but I was under the impression at first that this had to do with Harry not Dumbledore. And for some reason, even though I do not want to believe that Snape is really evil, it appears more likely that Snape would be inclined to help kill Harry than Dumbledore. Hmm... Any thoughts or hints in the book for or against this theory. Looking forward to reading your comments! Steph From beatrice23 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 13 13:46:25 2005 From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:46:25 -0000 Subject: why not get more help? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140102 snapeo'phile wrote: > While vaccuming the stairs this morning,I thought of something. Why > doesn't the OOP get some international help to fight Voldemort? Why > try to take him and the death eaters on all by themselves? Hi, Just catching up on my reading, I haven't been on in a while. In OotP, I believe that Ron tells Harry that Charlie is remaining in Romania to help do just that. I assume that there are others doing the same thing. Hope this answers your query. Beatrice From kat.rohts at gmx.de Tue Sep 13 14:40:09 2005 From: kat.rohts at gmx.de (bocadetomates) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:40:09 -0000 Subject: HBP's potions discoveries - why keep them secret? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140103 So, finally I come out of the dark corner I've been lurking in to put up a question that's haunted me for a few days now. I hope this hasn't been brought up before: Has anybody ever wondered why the discoveries a schoolboy (an exceptionally gifted one, granted, but yet a schoolboy) made twenty years ago about better ways of making well-known potions haven't found their way into the "official" potion- making guidelines (as Hermione calls them)? Since there are no universities of magic, Hogwarts is probably one of the most important sites of academical learning, at least in Britain, unless there are any other academical institutions we have not heard of yet. (There is the department of mysteries, of course, but I think Hogwarts would be in the same league.) Snape, as Hogwarts potions master, should therefore surely be considered one of the most well- respected scholars in potion-making, shouldn't he? So he would not have problems finding a publisher. The answers I came up with are all really unsatisfactory. Option 1: Slughorn is really old and has been in retirement for quite some time before he goes back to teaching. So maybe he's a little behind on recent developments and that's why he sets his students a book that hasn't been revised for ages. (Obviously hasn`t, since the other students copies are identical to the old one of the HBP.) Somehow I don't think so. We have seen the Weasleys buying some books second hand, and they have never had problems with any of them being out of date. And the way Slughorn talks about, or rather to Snape makes it quite clear he acknowledges Severus is a genius when it comes to potions. (At his party, when Slughorn praises Harry and says, "I doubt even you, Severus ") So if there had been a better book by Snape Slughorn had known of, he probably would have used that in his teaching. So is Snape simply modest and doesn't want to display his superiority? Bit out of character, don't you think? Or maybe not? We haven't seen him boasting that much, or at all, come to think of it. Then, there's of course always the possibility that he put his knowledge to some dark use or simply didn`t want to lose the advantage of knowing more than others by publishing it (ESE!Snape, OFH!Snape) Most learned people I know, and especially the ones who, like Snape, seem to think there are few people who are quite as good as they themselves are in their area of expertise (compare Snapes speech in PS, where he tells the students what he could teach them if they weren't as stupid as the general idiots he usually has in his classes), are nevertheless eager to discuss with those few they accept as equals. And the usual way to get in contact with them and prove you are a worthy discussion partner (at least in the muggle world) is by publishing. It's been argued on the list that what Snape wants most is recognition and also that he is quite devoted to science and learning. So why on earth has he been sitting on those HBP discoveries (and probably many more he made in all the quiet years when he was a teacher and Voldemort was Vapormort) for so long? bocadetomates From bob.oliver at cox.net Tue Sep 13 15:32:13 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:32:13 -0000 Subject: Hearing from the Great Middle Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140104 I was looking at the current results of Susan's poll, and I find them very interesting. It appears that roughly 25% of respondents are pretty certain Snape is Good, approximately 10% are certain Snape is evil, and the other roughly 2/3 of us are reluctant to come down on either side, either because we want to reserve judgment or because we think Snape will not, in the end, be clearly on one side or the other. I'm interested in hearing from this 2/3. We have seen multiple and vehement arguments from the die-hards on either end of the spectrum, but not all that much with regard to the great middle. What factors are keeping people from passing judgment, or what factors are convincing people that Snape probably won't come down firmly on either side? I personally think the evidence is so muddled and contradictory that I don't dare make any kind of prediction. Part of that is JKR's deliberate doing, and part probably isn't. Bless her heart, JKR just isn't always very clear and consistent, even when she wants to be (shipping anyone?). I suspect about half of the mystery around Snape has been deliberately created by the author, and the other half arises from circumstances that JKR thinks are perfectly straightforward but which don't appear so to the fandom. Having said that, I do believe that, from the standpoint of plot and literary merit, it makes a lot more sense for Snape not to be completely on any side but his own. Any other solution is 1) extremely boring (the "you mean that's it?" factor would be pretty high in either case) as it essentially means that either Dumbledore was a fool or Harry was wrong about Snape yet again -- which, by the way, also involves a large element of Dumbledore being a fool for not acting vigorously to defuse the ill-feeling between his two most valuable supporters -- both of which are yawners, 2) leaves all sort of contradictions and gaping plot holes unexplained, and 3) reduces potentially very complex characters and interactions to unbelievable, preachy, and frankly silly formulas. (Snape being ESE for sixteen years under DD's naive and trusting nose? Dumbledore sacrificing himself after a rushed legilemency conversation atop the tower? Noble Snape deliberately sacrificing his father-figure to the cause? Dumbledore deliberately plotting to die in advance, even to the extent of sternly ordering Snape to carry out the deed? Please, give me a break.) But that's just me. I'm interested in hearing what other members of the Great Middle think. Lupinlore From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Tue Sep 13 16:36:48 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 16:36:48 -0000 Subject: Events At Godic's Hollow Re:That darn Prophecy again... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140105 Saraquel wrote: > If LV was >trying to make a Horcrux at GH, did Lily step into the space around >something that was being charmed. Do you see what I mean? Might >that have caused something to happen? >I also have a problem with the whole notion of Harry surviving an >AK. If Lily stepped in front of him, then she took the hit of the >AK and it never got to Harry Elyse: I was under the impression that Lily was already dead at the time of the AK and/or Horcrux-making spell. (Cruxio! with a swish and flick?) As you said there was an object there that was intended to become a horcrux. I guess it had to be kept within a certain range at a certain point. And since the Horcrux-making spell (I'm going to call it Cruxio for want of a shorter word) is supposed to be extremely difficult magic. It would have needed some preparation, not just of the object, but the concentration required to "harness the soul". I doubt Lily would have stood around watching Voldemort preparing for her son's death. So I believe they were started after he killed Lily, not before. However, I am still interested in this theory, despite my inclinations against Harry The Horcrux! So here goes the other side of the argument: We know from the Dementors' effect on Harry in PoA that Lily was screaming "Not Harry, Not Harry, Please not Harry, Take me, kill me instead." Or something along those lines anyway. It is possible, given Voldemort's sadistic side, that he might have rendered Lily wandless and thus helpless when he came into the room. He might have forced her to watch these preparations, and explained, to her increasing horror, what he was going to do. So now that Lily knows about the proposed Horcux creation, she cries "Not Harry, take me, kill me instead, etc". Now when Voldemort hears this, he thinks, OK It might make more sense to kill the "Chosen One" with all seven Horcruxes firmly in place. So when he releases Lily, she stands in front of her son, and makes a deal with Voldemort to use her death instead of Harry's to cast the Cruxio. And then suddenly Voldy changes his mind. He remembers the reason he came here was to use the death of the one who could possibly vanquish him. Lily screams that he made a deal that he cannot go back on, but Voldemort is no longer paying attention And so when she refuses to stop shielding her son, he kills her. Now the nature of the deal that Lily made with LV was that he wouldnt touch Harry. Breaking this deal is what causes the AK along with the Cruxio to backfire, shredding LV's soul into two more pieces, one of which goes into Harry as his scar.And thus we have Harry the Horcrux! Skipping back onto the other side of the fence, wasnt the nature of Lily's protection that Voldemort could not touch Harry? I think DD says it in PS/SS and in GoF Voldemort says something like "... I could not touch the boy...lingering protection resides in my veins also....but no matter I can touch him now" and puts a long white finger to Harry's cheek. So if the AK was unable to penetrate the no touch protection, how did the Cruxio pass through? If Quirrels physical touch was impossible in PS/SS then how would Voldy's *soul* be able to get into Harry's skin cells? Okay, I realise that this post didnt make much sense. I probably shouldnt have supported both sides of the argument at the same time anyway. Feel free to throw stones, but forgive the grammar:) Elyse From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Sep 13 17:00:15 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:00:15 -0000 Subject: Hearing from the Great Middle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140106 lupinlore wrote: > But that's just me. I'm interested in hearing what other members > of the Great Middle think. zgirnius: If I had to guess what I really think is going on with Snape (and I do think guess is the right word, I believe that JKR has carefully built in ambiguities to make things uncertain) here goes: Snape really did come to DD sincerely remorseful for his prior bad actions back in the days of Voldemort's first war. I expect to learn more about why he was remorseful, and why Dumbledore believed him. I do not have a personal favorite theory. But I have seen more than one theory on the list which would work as far as I am concerned. (LOLLIPOPS, or his horror that Voldemort orders the killing of Regulus Black, as two examples). Despite having something at least vaguely resembling a conscience, he remains a nasty, unpleasant, bitter person, hence the interactions with his students that we see throughout the books. But Dumbledore, even seeing this, still trusts Snape, for the reason that Snape really did assume the very dangerous role of double agent in the first war, and is again willing to assume it at the end of GoF. Presumably he provides the Order with valuable intelligence during Books 5 and 6 which bolsters this confidence. (This might include information about the Riddle diary and its importance to Voldemort, Voldemort's plans regarding the Prophecy, and the warning to the Order that Harry may have gone to the MoM at the end of OotP.) Snape also, before the start of HBP, saves Dumbledore's life. (If we are to believe Dumbledore about the events surronding the Ring Horcrux, which I do.) But in Book 6 the situation changes. Snape takes the Unbreakable Vow in Chapter 2. I suppose that he does not know what the plan for Draco is at that time, he is trying to string Cissy and Bella along to learn this information like a good spy would. He agrees to the UV to gain their trust, and is perfectly happy to swear to protect and watch over Draco. The third request, of course, is the kicker-I think he did not see it coming. While the 'order spy' motive works best for me (coldebiancardi, if you are reading this I also loved 'The Spy Who Came in From the Cold'), I would not be particularly surprised if some variant of ACID POPS were in play as well, and I *really like* the idea that Snape's fateful decision to take the Vow may have been due to the malign influence of the DADA curse. (Yes, the timeline is off, it may not have been made official by then, but DD was thinking about bringing in Sluggie at Potions. Maybe the curse reads minds...) Depending on what exactly Draco's mission is, it *still* might not even be a total disaster. But, as the mission turns out to be to kill DD, well, Snape has a problem. I think Snape probably discusses his predicament with Dumbledore and even admits to making a UV, but I think he leaves out the important detail that he agreeed to do the task himself. This explains why Dumbledore is not worried when Harry tells him about the UV. He believed that Snape has told him the whole story, and Harry has no specific info on the details of the Vow. I can even see a possible 'out' in the wording of the Vow in the event that Draco were to renounce the task and go into hiding under DD's protection. Then Draco will never 'seem to fail' and Snape will be off the hook. (Possibly Snape even has this thought before taking the Vow...) OK, now to the tower scene. What is Snape's siutation? Draco has finally made his move. And, he has failed, in the presence of other DEs, to kill Dumbledore. As I see it, Snape at this point can either 1) Kill DD, or 2) not do it, and die for failing to live up to his UV. Snape goes with Option 1). Not because he truly serves LV, not because he hates DD, not because of some prearranged plan which requires DD to die at this point, but simply to save his own life. The look of "hatred and revulsion" is as supporters of the "good Snape" theories would agree, aimed at himself/the act he is committing. (But he still does it...) And the later scene (also mentioned by many a "good Snape" supporter) in which Snape reacts so strongly to Harry calling him a coward (for killing an unarmed DD is implied in that accusation, to my mind)...well, to me the strength of the reaction indicates that Snape *agrees* with Harry's estimation at that point. He's just killed a man who trusted and helped him in order to save his own life, and is ashamed of his own action. This definitely leaves open the possibility of Snape related plots for Book 7. His guilt could inspire him to some kind of sabotage in LVs camp (no need to coordinate with Order mambers of Harry for this type of action), or he could have some sort of "redemptive" scene where he does die protecting some other character (Draco?), or something like that. (I am fairly convinced that Snape will not survive Book 7.) (I probably come across as a Good!Snape theorist in other posts. This is wishful thinking on my part-what I *hope* happened/will happen, not what I *think* happened.) From rh64643 at appstate.edu Tue Sep 13 15:32:55 2005 From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:32:55 -0000 Subject: Filch Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140107 CS pg.128 Filch " 'The vanishing cabinet was extremely valuable!', he said gleefully to Mrs. Norris" Ok I have never posted anything but I would really like to get some feedback on this theory. I am rereading CS for like the 4th time and I just noticed this comment.It is I believe the first mention of the vanishing cabinet that proves to be soo important in the 6th book. This quote is part of my theory that Filch is bad news. I have been wondering why Rowling spends so much time telling us that Filch is a squib. This is also where Harry learns what a squib is. I kind of combined this chapter with proof we have in OOP that Filch has no loyalty to Dumbledore and somthing I have heard that Rowling says someone in the books will practice magic late in life. Now I believe that Hogwarts contains a few of the horcruxes and Filch is the caretaker of Hogwarts. I might be wrong, but it appears to me that Filch was around before Dumbledore was headmaster, maybe even when Riddle was a student, but definitely when he cam back to ask for the DADA position. That is the time many think that Riddle would have placed the horcruxes in Hogwarts. Basically my theory is tha Filch has helped Riddle before with his horcruxes. It all comes around to the fact that I believe he helped Draco with the vanishing cabinets. I believe Rowling makes such a big deal of him being a squib in order make us think he is no threat. This would also explain his extrordinary dislike of Harry. I could be completely wrong but there seem to be a lot of hints. truthbeauty1 From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com Tue Sep 13 17:06:22 2005 From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:06:22 -0000 Subject: the horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140108 > Amiable Dorsai: > Mentioned by Dumbledore as possibility: > Nagini > Something of Ravenclaw's > Something of Gryffindor's > > Fan speculation: > Sorting Hat > Sword of Gryffindor > Harry > Harry's scar > Ginny (scotched by JKR) > My take on the "Something of Gryffindor's" is Harry. In other words, Harry *is* the relic of Godric Gryffindor into which LV chose to place a horcrux, and the soul piece resides in the scar. We know that he and both of his parents are in Gryffindor House. We know that his parents lived in Godric's Hollow (as in Godric Gryffindor). JKR also said on her website that "Harry would be considered only 'half' wizard, because of his mother's grandparents." The conclusion I draw from that comment is that James and his family were pure-bloods. I don't have my copy of HBP at hand, but I think there was confirmation of that. Perhaps the Potters are descended directly from Godric Gryffindor, and Harry (their only child) is the only "true Gryffindor." (Again, do not have my copy of the books at hand but see DD's comment that only a true Gryffindor could have pulled the sword from the hat in COS). Finally, in COS, p.311, cited by rtbthw_mom in an earlier message: "Well, you see, Ginny told me all about you, Harry," said Riddle. "Your whole *fascinating* history." His eyes roved over the lightning scar on Harry's forehead, and their expression grew hungrier. "I knew I must find out more about you, talk to you, meet you if I could." Is the soul piece that is Tom Riddle from the diary "hungry" to reconnect with the soul piece in Harry's scar? HPfan_mom. From tab1669 at elnet.com Tue Sep 13 17:06:16 2005 From: tab1669 at elnet.com (flyingmonkeypurple) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:06:16 -0000 Subject: Harry and Ginny Weasley in book 7 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140109 I think Ginny and Harry are going to have a huge fight about friendships and trust. Harry tells everything to Hermione and Ron. He has told Ginny nothing. She won't stand to be in the dark for too long. She's his girlfriend and he's told her nothing. I would be mad. Harry has got to tell Ginny or big trouble will come. He better not say he can't tell her because Ron and Hermione are his best friends. That will lead to questions about what Ginny is to Harry other then a girlfriend, and whether he trusts her or not. Or Harry could tell her that Dumbledore told him not to tell anyone except Ron and Hermione. I think Ginny would accept that but would not be happy about it. On the other hand she could not care about the close relationship with the three at all. I for one don't think that's what she would do. I think it's funny that Ron and Ginny are so much alike. Ron and Ginny both have bad tempers, they like Quidditch, and they like to make people laugh. This sound likes the whole Weasley family. They all love Harry. I think it's funny that people marry their best friends. If Harry marries Ginny it will be like marrying Ron only Ginny is a girl and she's not as tackles as Ron is sometimes. Kind of got off the subject oh well. flyingmonkeypurple From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Sep 13 17:56:52 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:56:52 -0000 Subject: Hearing from the Great Middle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140110 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > I was looking at the current results of Susan's poll, and I find them very interesting. It appears that roughly 25% of respondents are pretty certain Snape is Good, approximately 10% are certain Snape is evil, and the other roughly 2/3 of us are reluctant to come down on either side, either because we want to reserve judgment or because we think Snape will not, in the end, be clearly on one side or the other. > > Having said that, I do believe that, from the standpoint of plot and literary merit, it makes a lot more sense for Snape not to be completely on any side but his own. Pippin: Um, I don't think I follow. Are you suggesting that if Snape murdered Dumbledore for purely selfish reasons, rather than to assist Lord Voldemort, he wouldn't be evil? ::boggles::: Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 13 18:07:59 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:07:59 -0000 Subject: It is all about Snape WAS: Re: Hearing from the Great Middle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140111 Lupinlore: > > > > > Having said that, I do believe that, from the standpoint of plot > and literary merit, it makes a lot more sense for Snape not to be > completely on any side but his own. > > Pippin: > Um, I don't think I follow. Are you suggesting that if Snape murdered > Dumbledore for purely selfish reasons, rather than to assist Lord > Voldemort, he wouldn't be evil? ::boggles::: > Alla: I don't want to speak for Lupinlore of course, but to me the situation in which Snape would be out for himself is when he murdered Dumbledore not because he intended to follow through with the task which Voldemort said, but because SNAPE felt that he had no other choice. Please take into consideration that I am not saying that NARRATOR (and I mean JKR here) will agree with Snape that he had no other choice, I am just saying that Snape may felt that killing Dumbledore was justified, because that would allow Snape to live. Actually, come to think of it Snape may have felt that he would indeed help good guys by killing Dumbledore and staying alive. Hmmm, I think I am describing Snape from Siguine's essay again, but she was more talking about good Snape. Sigh... I guess I have to backtrack and hope that Lupinlore would be able to explain better, I am just saying that Snape who killed primarily because he wanted to stay alive, in my mind, had better chance to be redeemed than the one who killed specifically because he was fulfilling what Voldemort ordered. I managed to confuse myself, I think. JMO, Alla. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Sep 13 18:24:29 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:24:29 -0000 Subject: No sex please, we're parents Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140112 JKR is quoted in Glamour magazine as saying Harry Potter has had less sexual experiences than a boy of his might have had. You can read it here. http://www4.mugglenet.com/viewer/?image_location=glamourmagazine.jpg No, no! Absouletly not. Who would have asked about that? For Heaven's sakes doesn't she know parents read the books! I have children that age. The last thing I need to read is to a book about sexually active teenagers. All the snogging, and hiding in dark hallways! Cold showers for everyone...no, not at the same time. Potioncat, who would agree that it seems the staff at Hogwarts might be having less sexual experiences than the norm. From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Tue Sep 13 18:56:42 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:56:42 -0000 Subject: the horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140113 Matt writes about my list of Horcruxes: Notes on locket: 1) Might or might not be an active horcrux. RAB note says RAB planned to destroy it. Note: It is only Dumbledore's speculation that the cup is a horcrux, though that speculation is at least well-grounded in the reasonably good evidence that Tom acquired the cup at the same time he acquired the locket. I can't remember who suggested it, but the specific speculation was about the tiara that Harry uses to mark the location of the HBP book in chapter 24. There was also more general speculation that one or more horcruxes -- whatever they are -- might be concealed in this "Hiding Place" version of the Room of Requirement. I think I also have read speculation about Tom's award for special services to the school being a horcrux. colebiancardi weighs in: I think it also could be Tom Riddle's Special Award from the School. The one that Ron had to polish over & over again in CoS, after he vomited slugs all over it. Amiable Dorsai: Revised Horcrux list: Confirmed and killed: Tom Riddles diary The Gaunt ring Almost certainly a Horcrux, status unknown: Slytherin's Locket Dumbledore's speculation: Hufflepuff's Cup Nagini Something of Ravenclaw's (Tiara?) Something of Gryffindor's Fan Speculation: Sorting Hat Sword of Gryffindor Harry Harry's scar Ginny (scotched by JKR--too bad, this was my favorite)) Riddle's Award for Special Service Tiara in Room of Requirement's hiding place (Ravenclaw's?) Some other object(s) in the "Hiding Place" Anything else? Myself, I think the last Horcrux will turn out to be a stuffed moose head on the wall of a bar just outside of Hinckley, Ohio. Amiable Dorsai From ken.fruit at gmail.com Tue Sep 13 19:08:08 2005 From: ken.fruit at gmail.com (rt11guru) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 19:08:08 -0000 Subject: Ancient Magic Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140114 DD told Harry that Tom Riddle had learned more about the "Ancient Magic" that exists at Hogwarts than anybody ever had. Will the Three Musketeers have to learn more about it in Book 7? Will Hermione finally demonstrate what she's learned here Ancient Runes class? Can she translate the operating instructions engraved around the edge of the pensieve? Speaking of the pensieve, if Harry uses it again, does he know how to get back? In the past, either DD was with him to bring him back, or there was someone (DD, Snape) to pull him back from the outside. Can a person get stuck in there after the memory has finished running? Guru From lebiles at charter.net Tue Sep 13 19:13:35 2005 From: lebiles at charter.net (leb2323) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 19:13:35 -0000 Subject: the horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140115 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amiabledorsai" wrote: > Revised Horcrux list: > > Confirmed and killed: > Tom Riddles diary > The Gaunt ring > > Almost certainly a Horcrux, status unknown: > Slytherin's Locket > > Dumbledore's speculation: > Hufflepuff's Cup > Nagini > Something of Ravenclaw's (Tiara?) > Something of Gryffindor's > > > Fan Speculation: > Sorting Hat > Sword of Gryffindor > Harry > Harry's scar > Ginny (scotched by JKR--too bad, this was my favorite)) > Riddle's Award for Special Service > Tiara in Room of Requirement's hiding place (Ravenclaw's?) > Some other object(s) in the "Hiding Place" > > Anything else? > leb: How about that giant statue of Slytherin in the Chamber of Secrets? Didn't the book say something about the eyes glinting like it was alive? Also, as to Harry being a horcrux . . . I posted this long ago but it got caught in the mass of posting and I never saw any feedback . . . I think that when LV possessed Harry during the MoM battle and then subsequently fled because of all that pesky love and hope swirling around inside Harry that LV accidentally and unknowingly took back that part of his soul that was in Harry. This would be the reason why Harry has not had any scar pain or twinges or flashes of LV's feelings, etc. and not because LV was continuously performing occlumency against it. What do you think? From n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 13 19:27:30 2005 From: n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com (n_longbottom01) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 19:27:30 -0000 Subject: the horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140116 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amiabledorsai" wrote: > mojonono8: > I can't find any place where people want to discuss the horcruxes. I > am obsessed with the unknown ones. JKR mentioned in an interview that > she was expecting someone to post the ones that are "revealed" in HBP. > > Amiable Dorsai: > So, let's post a list. Just off the top of my head, we have: > > Known Horcruxes: > Tom Riddle's diary--killed > Slytherin's locket--active > The Gaunt's ring--killed > Hufflepuff's Cup--active > > Mentioned by Dumbledore as possibility: > Nagini > Something of Ravenclaw's > Something of Gryffindor's > > Fan speculation: > Sorting Hat > Sword of Gryffindor > Harry > Harry's scar > Ginny (scotched by JKR) > > What have I missed? I remember that someone mentioned an object Harry > saw in the Room of Requirement while it was in "Attic" mode, but I > don't recall what it was. > > Amiable Dorsai n_longbottom01: I don't know how many of the horcruxes we should expect Harry to have already seen. I like the idea that Slytherin's locket was the same locket that Harry saw when helping to clean up Grimmauld Place, but that horcrux had previously been well hidden and well protected. It was only laying around for Harry to find because R.A.B. took it from the cave with the intention of destroying it, and didn't get a chance to destroy it (or so the theory goes). Maybe some of the horcruxes are "hidden within plain sight," but I expect that at least some of them are going to be well hidden and well protected like the locket was. And if they are well hidden and protected by curses, then Harry (and the reader) probably hasn't seen them yet. Also... is there anything that says that Voldemort can't have made a new horcrux by now? He wants his soul to be split into seven parts because seven is a powerful magical number. If he knows the diary was destroyed in the chamber of secrets, he knows his soul is only split into six parts. Would he create a new horcrux to bring the number back up to seven? n_longbottom01 From RoxyElliot at aol.com Tue Sep 13 19:39:06 2005 From: RoxyElliot at aol.com (RoxyElliot at aol.com) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:39:06 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] No sex please, we're parents Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140117 In a message dated 9/13/2005 2:28:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, willsonkmom at msn.com writes: No, no! Absouletly not. Who would have asked about that? For Heaven's sakes doesn't she know parents read the books! I have children that age. The last thing I need to read is to a book about sexually active teenagers. All the snogging, and hiding in dark hallways! Cold showers for everyone...no, not at the same time. Romance isn't the focus of the series. JKR is writing about teenagers so of course some hormones are going to come into play. No one would buy the story otherwise. I don't see her getting any more descriptive than she did in book six though. What would be the point? It would just distract from the story. Those who wish to fill in the blanks will, and those who don't can move right along. Roxanne http://Caffeinatedgeekgirl.typepad.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 13 20:01:37 2005 From: n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com (n_longbottom01) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:01:37 -0000 Subject: the horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140118 > leb: > How about that giant statue of Slytherin in the Chamber of Secrets? > Didn't the book say something about the eyes glinting like it was > alive? > n_longbottom01 I like the idea that there is a horcrux hidden in the Chamber of Secrets. It is a great hiding spot, it is somewhere significant to Tom Riddle, it has a connection to the school's founders, you have to be a parseltongue to get in, and the Basalisk is down there to kill anyone who might threaten the horcrux. I would really enjoy seeing Harry return to the spot of one of his early adventures, now that he has changed and grown up so much. Didn't Dumbledore say that Voldemort intended that the diary horcrux be used for reopening the Chamber at some point? (Forgive me and correct me if I am remembering someone's theory as cannon). That is the one reason I think the Chamber might be an unlikely spot for another horcrux. If the diary horcrux was intended to "go with" the Chamber of Secrets, then he might not want to hide a second horcrux there. He probably wouldn't want to put two of his seven eggs in one basket. Maybe the diary was supposed to be hidden in the chamber, and Voldemort hadn't gotten a chance to hide it there yet. n_longbottom01 From lealess at yahoo.com Tue Sep 13 20:47:39 2005 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:47:39 -0000 Subject: Hearing from the Great Middle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140119 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > I'm interested in hearing from this 2/3. We have seen multiple and > vehement arguments from the die-hards on either end of the > spectrum ... What factors > are keeping people from passing judgment, or what factors are > convincing people that Snape probably won't come down firmly on > either side? > And now for something completely different In spite of the moral ambiguity of many characters in the books, I do not think Rowling is writing a morally ambiguous tale. She herself has said the story is "highly moral" (Today program interview on July 18, 2005). So, much as I am fascinated by the multiple facets of Snape's character, which appear contradictory under different lights, I often try to look at Snape in the stark black and white of good and evil. And yet, I can't. Certainly, Snape is a powerful wizard. Had he the light touch, he might have been another Dumbledore. Had he been darker, he might have been Voldemort. As it is, he is human, all too human. "Enough, I am still alive; and life has not been devised by morality: it wants deception, it lives on deception--but wouldn't you know it? Here I am, beginning again, doing what I have always done, the old immoralist and birdcatcher, I am speaking immorally, extra- morally, 'beyond good and evil.'" [Source: Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits (1879)] Snape for me is a Nietzschean figure, a seeker after knowledge (much as Saraquel posts in the excellent No. 139635), an artist as much as a thinker, a man capable of greatness but constrained by the circumstances of his existence and events of his past. In order to gain the self-discipline to exist as he feels he must, in order to prevent the repetition of previous grief, he has shut himself off from social life to favor pure intellect. This, what he perceives to be a source of strength, is perhaps his greatest weakness. I think he set his eyes on nobility, but has been held to baseness. Nietzsche was a questioner and rejecter of labels. The labels that apply to Snape I similarly question and reject. In the end, in a black and white book, one label will apply. As for which one, I have hope for good on the one hand, and fear for bad on the other, but I really cannot say which prevails in the author's mind. The "clues" frankly argue for either, and all one is left with is an emotional response to the character, probably based on personal history, which may even be how Rowling approaches him. As for whether Dumbledore was a fool or not, in my framework of thought, it really doesn't matter. I question all of the moral underpinnings of the series, and to some extent, even discount the plot. My viewpoint on punishment for murder is even unorthodox, being closer aligned to Brehan law than anything else. So what am I doing reading HPfGU? Up until this last book, it has been Rowlings' characters and the nature of the magical world that have interested me. Nietzsche came to a sad end, fallen prey to madness caused by an insidious disease acquired in youth. I believe Snape will similarly come to a tragic end, and its cause will stem from an event or events in his youth. I also think it will culminate a life which was largely wasted, compared to what his character might have accomplished. But such is the wizarding world. Now, back to Thomas Hardy. lealess From bob.oliver at cox.net Tue Sep 13 20:38:43 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:38:43 -0000 Subject: Hearing from the Great Middle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140120 > Pippin: > Um, I don't think I follow. Are you suggesting that if Snape murdered > Dumbledore for purely selfish reasons, rather than to assist Lord > Voldemort, he wouldn't be evil? ::boggles::: Chuckle. Fair enough, I was not being very clear and consistent with my own terms. I think that it would be the best choice, from the standpoint of plot and literary merit, for Snape to be on neither Dumbledore's side nor Voldemort's side, at least not completely. Most of us, I think, have a habit of speaking loosely in that we equate DD's side with "Good" and Voldy's with "Evil," and as I recall even the language of the poll seems to suggest this. However, you are quite right that such is not really a very good way of expressing opinions about Snape, as it is quite possible for him to be a thoroughly evil individual and still not be on Voldemort's side. Lupinlore From herreid55555 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 13 21:05:08 2005 From: herreid55555 at yahoo.com (herreid55555) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 21:05:08 -0000 Subject: Snape loved Lilly Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140121 I'm new here and may have missed an extensive thread concerning this topic... Snape was in love with Lilly - perhaps the only girl that showed him any compassion - and was helping LV find the Potters on the understanding that LV would spare Lilly and that Snape could have her when Harry was dead. But when LV killed Lilly too Snape was filled with remorse and joined DD for revenge and redemption. Herreid. From j.halpin at telia.com Tue Sep 13 19:49:08 2005 From: j.halpin at telia.com (wiseard) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 19:49:08 -0000 Subject: The Why, What and How of Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140122 Yes I have just read this book and it left a lasting impression. So here's a current working theory to add to the rest: 1) Yes Dumbledore planned his own death in concert with Snape. 2) Yes, this means that Snape is still working for the Order as a double agent. 3) HOWEVER: Dumbledore has also prepared his own resurrection (more on this later) This 'play for the gallery' was necessary so that: a) Snape (as already posted) will be beyond suspicion and have secured a vital place in Voldermort's inner circle. That of course is a particularly risky game and the reason why Snape became so furious with Harry for calling him a coward. Imagine Dumbledore's position: On the one hand having to placate Harry's suspicions of Snape, on the other having to convince Snape that Harry will ultimately prove worthy of all the risk and trouble to which he (Snape) is going. b)So that Harry will absolutely believe him to be dead at the hands of Snape and with no subterfuge - that in the likely case his weak Occulemency skills come to be inevitably penetrated by Voldermort in their coming showdown it will reveal nothing untoward. So much for WHY. So what and how has Dumbledore done it? 1) I believe Dumbledore had already visited the cave and retrieved the horcrux albeit at the cost of enduring a damaged hand from some protective spell or battle. The reason why he miraculously hits upon the idea that he needs to drink the contents of the basin is because it is actually a potion that he has had the Half Blood Prince and potion master Snape prepare. By drinking it he must face his worst fear and death. This is also why he needed Harry's help. The reward however will mean he will then be able to face actual death. This has to be however at the hands of the person who has made the potion or at least someone of Dumbledore's choosing. It only by this that he can in a sense `survive' the Avada Kedavra curse. Well not so much survive (yes I believe he did die) but to CREATE A POSITIVE HORCRUX. Whereas Voldermort would have no trouble with the idea of sacrificing someone else's life to create a horcrux it would never occur to him to sacrifice his own out of love. This has always been his weakness and Dumbledore's strength. The horcrux itself is probably either the locket with the cryptic message Harry has instinctively kept or Fawkes, his phoenix who has now flown away into hiding. 2) So this is why Dumbledore insisted on Snape and not Madam Pomfroy when he was returning sick from his turmoil with the potion in the cave. 3) This is also why he stalled for time with Malfoy, so that Snape would arrive to play his assigned Judas role and that Dumbledore could glean some information that may prove useful later (after his resurrection). 4) Compare this drama to other uses of this `Cosmic death' to bring victory: The passion of christ; the dissolution of the ego; Gandalf's conscious meeting with his death (and resurection) in Lord of the Rings; Neo going to what he believed to be his death in saving Morpheus in The Matrix etc etc. So that's it: The final book should see Dumbldore's dramatic, last minute return in Harry's hour of need. It may also mean the sacrifice of Snape but not before Harry learns the truth about how Snape, despite his personl dislike of Harry and his father, has played the most dangerous and thankless role. A true sacrifice. I can't wait Wiseard. From ShylahM at gmail.com Tue Sep 13 22:12:58 2005 From: ShylahM at gmail.com (Shylah) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 10:12:58 +1200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Events At Godic's Hollow Re:That darn Prophecy again... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <403e946f0509131512158e1fa2@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140123 > Elyse wrote: > > I was under the impression that Lily was already dead > at the time of the AK and/or Horcrux-making spell. > (Cruxio! with a swish and flick?) > > As you said there was an object there that was intended to become a > horcrux. I guess it had to be kept within a certain range > at a certain point. And since the Horcrux-making spell (I'm going to > call it Cruxio for want of a shorter word) is supposed to be > extremely > difficult magic. It would have needed some preparation, not just of > the object, but the concentration required to "harness the soul". > I doubt Lily would have stood around watching Voldemort > preparing for her son's death. > So I believe they were started after he killed Lily, not before. > > However, I am still interested in this theory, despite my > inclinations against Harry The Horcrux! > So here goes the other side of the argument: > > We know from the Dementors' effect on Harry in PoA that > Lily was screaming "Not Harry, Not Harry, Please not Harry, > Take me, kill me instead." Or something along those lines anyway. > It is possible, given Voldemort's sadistic side, > that he might have rendered Lily wandless and thus helpless > when he came into the room. He might have forced her to watch these > preparations, and explained, to her increasing horror, what he was > going to do. > So now that Lily knows about the proposed Horcux creation, > she cries "Not Harry, take me, kill me instead, etc". > > Now when Voldemort hears this, he thinks, > OK It might make more sense to kill the "Chosen One" with all > seven Horcruxes firmly in place. So when he releases Lily, she > stands in front of her son, and makes a deal with Voldemort > to use her death instead of Harry's to cast the Cruxio. > And then suddenly Voldy changes his mind. He remembers > the reason he came here was to use the death of the one who could > possibly vanquish him. Lily screams that he made a deal that he > cannot go back on, but Voldemort is no longer paying attention > And so when she refuses to stop shielding her son, he kills her. > > Now the nature of the deal that Lily made with LV was that he > wouldnt touch Harry. Breaking this deal is what causes the AK along > with the Cruxio to backfire, shredding LV's soul into two more > pieces, one of which goes into Harry as his scar.And thus we have > Harry the Horcrux! > > Skipping back onto the other side of the fence, wasnt the nature of > Lily's protection that Voldemort could not touch Harry? > I think DD says it in PS/SS and in GoF Voldemort says something like > "... I could not touch the boy...lingering protection resides in my > veins also....but no matter I can touch him now" and puts a long > white finger to Harry's cheek. > So if the AK was unable to penetrate the no touch protection, how > did the Cruxio pass through? > If Quirrels physical touch was impossible in PS/SS then how would > Voldy's *soul* be able to get into Harry's skin cells? > > Elyse Tanya now. I snipped as much as I could. I think the second option with the memories Harry does have when the Dementors are near give this a definate possibility. If Lily was indeed wandless and 'helpless', I think that LV would have had to magically bind her in some way so that she couldn't move. That would have appealed to him. Afterwards, well, anything could happen. What always confuses me is that LV never appeared, in canon so far, to petrify her, or some other knockout spell if he wasn't interested in AKing her as soon as he entered the room where they both were. Perhaps he thought that the fear of him would keep her from responding or trying to protect Harry. As a muggle born witch, she would know how to fight without a wand. And as a mother, she would have tried regardless of how well armed LV was in comparism to her. But from the screaming Harry does hear around Dementors, it seems that there was a bit of dialogue going on there. The high cold laugh might seem to fit better when he was telling her about what he planned. In canon it is right before the last flash of green light a second before everything went wrong. There is no mention of it being cut off in mid laugh. I have considered all the segments of canon I can find, to see what LV refers to over killing Lily. The below idea could fit, as both times he says that she was trying to protect Harry. Another option could be that there was no verbal deal. Instead, he had her secured in the corner with a spell that wasn't going to last forever, just a restraint that wears off soon enough. The Impediment jinx seems to relax after a while. But having her upright to see what happened would be more 'fun' for him. However, just before he was ready to cast the spells to make the horcrux and kill Harry, she is able to move enough to run over and get in the way. LV can either then order her out of the way, pausing long enough before starting, to kill her, and then returning to the task at hand. It is said that this scenario was a one off, never done before. But the timing is the tricky thing. Without LV's words of stand aside girl etc, I would have also suggested that she got free just in time to throw herself between them as the spells started, giving him no time to react. Tanya From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Tue Sep 13 22:26:47 2005 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:26:47 -0400 Subject: Hearing from the Great Middle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140124 lupinlore wrote: > I'm interested in hearing from this 2/3. We have seen multiple and > vehement arguments from the die-hards on either end of the > spectrum ... What factors > are keeping people from passing judgment, or what factors are > convincing people that Snape probably won't come down firmly on > either side? PJ answers: I've always seen Snape as an adult Dudley. The only difference between them for me is Snape's talent and intelligence -- Dudley has none. Yes Snape wants recognition (there have been some excellent posts on this point) but he's not willing to do what it takes to achieve it which is to face his personal demons head on and put them to rest. He's an emotional coward, taking pleasure in terrorizing the children in his care. After all, if he's unhappy, why shouldn't everyone be? I think what shows this facet of him best for me is his relationship with Harry. He looks like his father, Snape hates his father so makes the son's life hell. Why? James is dead - game over! Nope, not for Snape. He never bested James so he's determined to best Harry. Sad really... Especially since he won't win that battle either. Someone like Snape isn't good or evil because their only concern is with themselves. They're pitiful. PJ (digging foxhole) From jjjjjulie at aol.com Tue Sep 13 22:48:38 2005 From: jjjjjulie at aol.com (jjjjjuliep) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 22:48:38 -0000 Subject: the horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140125 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hpfan_mom" wrote: > My take on the "Something of Gryffindor's" is Harry. In other > words, Harry *is* the relic of Godric Gryffindor into which LV > chose to place a horcrux, and the soul piece resides in the scar. [snip] > Perhaps the Potters are descended directly from Godric > Gryffindor, and Harry (their only child) is the only "true > Gryffindor." (Again, do not have my copy of the books at > hand but see DD's comment that only a true Gryffindor could have > pulled the sword from the hat in COS). JKR has said Harry is not the heir of Gryffindor: -------------------- MA: What about Harry's family ? his grandparents ? were they killed? JKR: No. This takes us into more mundane territory. As a writer, it was more interesting, plot-wise, if Harry was completely alone. So I rather ruthlessly disposed of his entire family apart from Aunt Petunia. I mean, James and Lily are massively important to the plot, of course, but the grandparents? No. And, because I do like my backstory: Petunia and Lily's parents, normal Muggle death. James's parents were elderly, were getting on a little when he was born, which explains the only child, very pampered, had-him-late-in-life-so- he's-an-extra-treasure, as often happens, I think. They were old in wizarding terms, and they died. They succumbed to a wizarding illness. That's as far as it goes. There's nothing serious or sinister about those deaths. I just needed them out of the way so I killed them. MA: That sort of shuts down Heir of Gryffindor [theories], as well. JKR: [Pause.] Yeah. Well - yeah. http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet- anelli-3.htm --------------- jujube, who thinks the unknown Horcrux is Ravenclaw's wand (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/136958) -- Madam Pince's Sitting Room: a strictly canon-based Harry Potter discussion group opening for discussion in mid-September http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Madam_Pince/ From AllieS426 at aol.com Wed Sep 14 00:10:36 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:10:36 -0000 Subject: Ancient Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140126 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rt11guru" wrote: > DD told Harry that Tom Riddle had learned more about the "Ancient > Magic" that exists at Hogwarts than anybody ever had. Will the Three > Musketeers have to learn more about it in Book 7? Will Hermione > finally demonstrate what she's learned here Ancient Runes class? Can > she translate the operating instructions engraved around the edge of > the pensieve? > > Speaking of the pensieve, if Harry uses it again, does he know how to > get back? In the past, either DD was with him to bring him back, or > there was someone (DD, Snape) to pull him back from the outside. Can a > person get stuck in there after the memory has finished running? > > Guru I have wondered about those things many times. Why have Hermione tell the boys how interesting and useful Ancient Runes is (repeatedly) without ever showing us why? Will Harry get stuck in a Pensieve when the original owner of the memory is not there to pull him out? What disastrous event will occur while Harry is stuck in a memory of Dumbledore arriving too late at Godric's Hollow? Allie From lolita_ns at yahoo.com Tue Sep 13 23:13:34 2005 From: lolita_ns at yahoo.com (lolita_ns) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 23:13:34 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End--further evidence for DDsMan!Snape?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140127 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: *What* about Snape's memory with the Marauders & > Lily & himself being flipped upside down do you think Snape would have > wanted, especially, to prevent Voldy from seeing? If we > assume "Snape's Worst Memory" refers to that one, and not to one of > the others he deposited in the pensieve (and which we did not get to > see), then why would this be the worst one? And would it be the worst > one for Voldy to see? > Lolita: As far as that is concerned, you will have to join me on the ride through the land of Snape the Super Spy :) There are 2 possibilities. One is that the memory in question was indeed kept there safe from LV (I somehow can't bring myself to call him - or should I say *it* - Voldie - but you are free to knock yourself out :) ). In this case, there is something in the memory that probably regards Lily - maybe sth that is to be revealed in HP7 and which, in that case, has sth to do with any relationship (friendship, love, hate, you pick) that LE and SS might have had. Personally, I don't think that it's true but hey - it can as well be. Rowling hasn't danced to my tune before, she's not going to start to now. The other possibility is sth that I already mentioned in the previous post. I said that SS used the Pensieve to store his memories and keep them safe from LV. But I also said that the whole 'Snape's Worst Memory' thing was a deliberate, clever set-up on Snape's part. In this case, the other memories in the Pensieve were indeed kept from LV, but this particular one, the one that Harry saw, was handpicked for him. Then, the 'Snape's worst memory' title would refer to the memory that was not worst for *Snape*, but the one that would be worst for *Harry*. Let me elaborate. I've already said that teaching Harry Occlumency was probably the hardest task ever given to Snape. And he was probably desperate to find SOME way of avoiding it. What better than to drive Harry away? SS will have his arse covered both ways - see my previous post for details on this. So, he wants to drive Harry away. How? Oh, *such* a hard task. Potter is *so* unpredictable. SS already knows that Harry gets all mushy when he is compared with James the Great. And he idolises the Dog too. So, hand-pick a memory which shows these two gentlemen in worst light possible. Make Potter see what wonderful people his two heroes were. Snape has *seen* Potter's memories of being humiliated and tortured by the Dursleys. Snape is really not stupid. He doesn't bloody care what happened to Harry before Hogwarts. But he saw it. And he's going to use it. Maybe he deliberately searched through Harry's mind to find a memory which he could somehow use. Then combed through his own memories and found one similar to Harry's. Took it out - made *such* a show (SS has always been a drama queen, but the Occlumency lessons were a bit too much, even for him) of removing the memories out of his mind - and thus made sure that Potter would remember it. Left Potter alone in the room, with the Pensieve that almost had the 'Look at me' note stuck to it. On his return to the office he found Potter - surprise, surprise - in the Pensieve. Made him leave the Pensieve. Shook him a bit. Threw a jar of cockroaches at him. And, oh, yeah - accidentally - said that he won't teach him Occlumency any more. Yeah, right. Snape is *such* an impulsive soul. He has never done a single calculating thing in his life. So. To sum up: Snape searches for means to throw Harry out. He sifts through the boy's mind, finds a couple of memories to model his own to. Finds his own memory that will upset the boy the most - and make him sympathise with Snape, of all people. Makes sure that the boy sees him storing his memories into the Pensieve. Provides the boy with the opportunity to take a plunge. Finds him in flagranti. Then he's oh-so- angry. (We have *seen* Snape really angry - in the Shack scene in PoA - he was pissed, he wanted to kill, he screamed at the kids. Later on, he screamed at them some more - in the Hospital wing - he was out of control. He was treating everyone in the half-mile radius with his spittle. In OotP, what does he do? He whispers. He shakes Harry a bit. He throws a jar of inexpensive dead cockroaches at the boy, for crying out loud! This scene has *SET-UP* written in red letters all over it.) Finally, throws the boy out. NEVER teaches him Occlumency again. Well. If I was the Dark Lord, I would be impressed. If I was Dumbledore (provided that my dear professor bothered to tell me - since I was already out of school by then. And let's not forget that Snape threw Harry out only *after* DD was out of school). I would be oh-so-sad, and I would say that it was my mistake that I thought that this spiteful man could forget his twenty year-old grudge for the greater good. If I was Snape, I would breathe a sigh of relief. And if I was Harry, I would be none the wiser. Finally, if I was the reader, I would speculate endlessly. So, to cut the long story short, I belive that Snape took the memories he wanted to keep safe from LV out of his head and put them in the Pensieve long before Harry would showup. Thus, he was safe. As far as 'Snape's worst memory' is concerned, I think that he deliberately set the whole thing up in order to have a reason to stop teaching Harry Occlumency. And that the memory he so conspicuously took out of his head in front of Harry every time was the one he intended for Harry to see. Thus effectively keeping himself out of danger. Lolita. From AllieS426 at aol.com Wed Sep 14 01:00:06 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 01:00:06 -0000 Subject: Hearing from the Great Middle & other assorted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140128 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, lupinlore wrote: > > I'm interested in hearing from this 2/3. We have seen multiple and > > vehement arguments from the die-hards on either end of the > > spectrum ... What factors > > are keeping people from passing judgment, or what factors are > > convincing people that Snape probably won't come down firmly on > > either side? > So many reasons that I cannot pass judgement! I'm only going to add things that haven't been beaten to death. Why it's possible that Snape could be ESE (on the side of the DE's): We haven't seen any direct proof of anything that he's told the Order that has been *at all* helpful to them. Snape is the epitome of nasty, and he's such a stereotype "bad guy" that even if he's NOT a Death Eater at heart, I'll have a hard time forgiving him for what he's done to Harry and Hermione throughout the series. (The "I see no difference" regarding Hermione's huge teeth after Malfoy's curse makes me mad every time I read it.) JKR's comment in her Mugglenet/Leaky interview regarding people clinging to a desperate hope about Snape being still on Dumbledore's side makes me think that it is possible he's not. Why it's possible that Snape could be ESG (on the side of the Order): It would be so borrrrring if the nasty guy "swooping around like an overgrown bat" really turns out to be the traitor. He saved Dumbledore's life before the action of HBP. (Granted, we don't know the circumstances, maybe he didn't *really* do all that he could have.) He saved Harry's life in book 1. We haven't seen any direct proof of anything that Snape has told the Death Eaters that has helped them. What he bragged about to Bellatrix doesn't necessarily have to be true. I think it will make a much better plotline if Harry, after months of pursuing Snape with the intent to do I-don't-know-what him, finds out that Snape really *was* on their side. Why it's possible that Snape is OFH (out for himself): He has to walk a fine line at all times, putting himself in such a dangerous position, why would anybody do it, unless they were truly THAT GOOD? Is he really SO REMORSEFUL about something that he feels obligated to help the Order? Maybe he's remorseful enough to have left the Death Eaters, but since they'll kill him for it, his only option left was to turn spy for the Order. Even if he doesn't care about the Order's purpose either, he has to make the DE's think he's still on their side, even if his heart's not in it, to save his own skin. (I know that's really convoluted, what I was trying to say is that maybe he's only helping the Order because he doesn't want to be a Death Eater, not because he cares what they're doing.) Other assorted and totally unrelated topics: We are due for a MAJOR TWIST in the next book. We haven't had one in TWO books now! Order of the Phoenix - no major twist. Slightly minor twist when Sirius wasn't at the DoM. HBP - no major twist. The-locked- is-a-fake was a minor twist, because we only found out that Harry and Dumbledore were going after it one chapter previously to finding it. Whatever happened to the bad guy being the one you LEAST expect? Quirrell? Ginny Weasley?? SCABBERS???? (Partly why I do not think Snape is ESE - it has to be somebody surprising, like.... Fleur. Charlie. Tonks. Errol. :) ) I HATE the idea that Harry/Harry's scar is a Horcrux. After reading all the arguments, though, I'm starting to believe it could be the scar. I think there will be a big twist relating to the Horcruxes, like there are more than 7, or one of them was not really destroyed when Harry thinks they have all been destroyed. In the beginning of OoP, Harry and the Advance Guard fly to London on broomsticks. Lupin tells Harry "You're too young to apparate." What about side-along apparition? Was that not invented yet at the time of writing? Long-winded, Allie From sunnylove0 at aol.com Wed Sep 14 01:16:31 2005 From: sunnylove0 at aol.com (sunnylove0 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 21:16:31 EDT Subject: Random thoughts was: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hearing from the Great Middle Message-ID: <15d.58f559e1.3058d3ef@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140129 In a message dated 9/13/2005 11:58:11 AM Mountain Standard Time, foxmoth at qnet.com writes: Um, I don't think I follow. Are you suggesting that if Snape murdered Dumbledore for purely selfish reasons, rather than to assist Lord Voldemort, he wouldn't be evil? ::boggles::: Pippin Well, murder is murder, yes. But if he did it under the UV, to a dying and targeted man, he didn't have much choice.(But there's nothing more selfish is HP than self preservation- it's what LV is all about and Lily is not) Is that evil? It seems like yes and no to me. (And yes, I believe that DD is dead. Snape is not dead, therefore DD is.) I don't think Snape would have murdered him without the UV, though. It's upstaging Voldemort, which will paint a target on his back anyway. I'm really starting to think OFH!Snape, with a bit of an honor code, is the true explanation. I doubt Snape cares for Dumbledore's passive-aggressive manipulation tactics (see DD chewing Harry out for not getting the memory) ,or for his overprotection of Harry, (which Dumbledore himself admits was the wrong decision) or his stolen glory at the end of POA. Dumbledore has offered Snape mercy, but I'm sure he's expected to work for it. Every day. I think he has some loyalty to DD (he kept him out of Azkaban, for heaven's sake), but only as long as it doesn't make him risk his own life or his cover. And it did in HBP. (and very likely, almost in OOP) And if he was truly on Voldemort's side still after the last war, he's an idiot, pure and simple. (BTW, Do you think if Harry delivered a lethal blow to Voldemort, that any DE other than Bellatrix would lift a finger to help him?) Maybe when he was a bitter, hateful twenty-something with a grudge. But he knows now that neither he nor Draco are any further use to Voldemort. One is an upstaging proven traitor whose spying cover is broken and the other is a useless coward. LV will kill them on sight. Which is why I think Snape doesn't drag Harry to LV. Because he's not going back. He and Draco are going on the run. And he will help Harry. Not because of loyalty to DD, but because he will die if he doesn't. Morally ambigious? Yes. But it might spare him the death penalty in Book 7. Snape is, as JKR says, "a deeply horrible person". But unlike her unfavorite character, Vernon, and Draco, Snape at least willing to make choices. And as many have pointed out, the choice of killing DD and getting out of Hogwarts with a minimum body count, horrible as it was, was the only way. Even though it was evil. And it was murder. Whether the AK or the fall or the potion did it. JMO. Amber, who apologizes if this doesn't make much sense [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Sep 14 01:27:22 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 01:27:22 -0000 Subject: Did Snape think Draco was to kill Harry instead of Dumbledore? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140130 Steph: > Has anyone ever wondered if Snape pretended to know about the plan, > but figured that it was Harry who was going to be killed? > Maybe I missed something, but I was under the impression at first > that this had to do with Harry not Dumbledore. And for some reason, > even though I do not want to believe that Snape is really evil, it > appears more likely that Snape would be inclined to help kill Harry > than Dumbledore. houyhnhnm: I thought that the first time I read it and still do. There are many ambiguities in "Spinner's End" that lead one to doubt whether Snape really knows about the plan. This from Narcissa is particularly suggestive that Harry is the object of the plot. "But he won't succeed!" sobbed Narcissa. "How can he, when the Dark Lord himself--?" (P. 33, AE) Another fill-in-the-blank. "...when the Dark Lord himself has tried and failed"? Voldemort has tried and failed to kill Harry four times. Or "...when the Dark Lord himself is afraid to try"? The Only One He Ever Feared. I don't believe Snape agreed to the vow because he was willing to kill Harry. I don't think he planned to kill anybody. I believe he was so complacent about his own cleverness, he simply took one risk too many. I agree with the theory put forth by others that the UV was the first manifestation of the DADA curse and that the curse worked through the character flaw its victims. Snape's was intellectual hubris. From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Sep 14 01:40:36 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 01:40:36 -0000 Subject: Hearing from the Great Middle & other assorted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140131 Allie: > Why it's possible that Snape could be ESE > (on the side of the DE's): > > We haven't seen any direct proof of anything > that he's told the Order that has been *at all* > helpful to them. houyhnhnm: Why it's NOT possible that Snape could be ESE (on the side of the DE's): He informed the Order of Voldemort's most critical secret. The goal that was so important to LV that he concentrated all his energies on it and delayed the start of WWWII for a whole year. It doesn't have to be spelled out in block letters. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Sep 14 01:52:05 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 01:52:05 -0000 Subject: Random thoughts was: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hearing from the Great Middle In-Reply-To: <15d.58f559e1.3058d3ef@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140132 Amber: > Well, murder is murder, yes. But if he did it under the UV, to a dying and > targeted man, he didn't have much choice.(But there's nothing more selfish is > HP than self preservation- it's what LV is all about and Lily is not) Is that > evil? It seems like yes and no to me. (And yes, I believe that DD is dead. > Snape is not dead, therefore DD is.) I don't think Snape would have murdered > him without the UV, though. It's upstaging Voldemort, which will paint a > target on his back anyway. Ceridwen: First, I agree that Snape killing Dumbledore is putting a target on his back. Voldemort meant for Draco to die to punish Lucius, too. A target on his front as well, perhaps? I'm not so sure that the assumption that Snape is alive at the end of the book is a given, though. Just something I've been wondering about, reflecting back, possibly wrongly, reading through various posts and re-reading Flight of the HBP. *Could* Snape have been so... frightened, like Fang... reacting so strongly to being called a coward... because he knew he was going to die from *not* performing that AK correctly? Or, because he *thought* he was going to die because it didn't feel right? We've all gone back and forth on how it didn't resemble any of the *very* few AKs we've seen elsewhere in the books. And, the last thing we hear about Snape is that the paper says they haven't found him yet, or somesuch. For one or another of those reasons, I'm wondering, then, if Snape isn't dead, we just haven't heard yet. > > I'm really starting to think OFH!Snape, with a bit of an honor code, is the > true explanation. *(snip)* Ceridwen: Sounds reasonable, though I make some reservations to myself here. > And if he was truly on Voldemort's side still after the last war, he's an > idiot, pure and simple. (BTW, Do you think if Harry delivered a lethal blow to > Voldemort, that any DE other than Bellatrix would lift a finger to help him?) Ceridwen: Yup, I agree. > Maybe when he was a bitter, hateful twenty-something with a grudge. But he > knows now that neither he nor Draco are any further use to Voldemort. One is > an upstaging proven traitor whose spying cover is broken and the other is a > useless coward. LV will kill them on sight. Ceridwen: Good points about not going back. I tend to agree. He's getting out, not just from Hogwarts, but from spying and from the DEs as well, and he's going to hide Draco. > Which is why I think Snape doesn't drag Harry to LV. Because he's not going > back. He and Draco are going on the run. And he will help Harry. Not > because of loyalty to DD, but because he will die if he doesn't. Morally > ambigious? Yes. But it might spare him the death penalty in Book 7. Ceridwen: Another reason could be, as you suggested with this line: "I'm really starting to think OFH!Snape, with a bit of an honor code", that he is against Voldemort and the DEs, which may make for strange bedfellows, but doesn't necessarily mean he's heart and soul with the Order. > Snape is, as JKR says, "a deeply horrible person". But unlike her > unfavorite character, Vernon, and Draco, Snape at least willing to make choices. And > as many have pointed out, the choice of killing DD and getting out of > Hogwarts with a minimum body count, horrible as it was, was the only way. Even > though it was evil. And it was murder. Whether the AK or the fall or the potion > did it. Ceridwen: If the potion did it, then Snape is not guilty of murder. But AK or fall, then yes, he is. *Unless*, as suggested several elsewheres on this and other sites, there was something else in play (I have my own ideas, which I've mentioned, and won't go into here). Now that you've contrasted Snape with Vernon, I'm wondering if there's some contrast in Dumbledore's visit with the Dursleys and the scene on the tower. Probably not, but at this point, with book 7 not due for (at least) a couple of years, just about everything is fair game for suggestion and speculation. By the time the book comes out, I'll probably be reading Dobby's palm for signs, and wondering how I got hold of Dobby's fictitious palm to begin with. Ceridwen, who isn't actually addressing the original thread, but had some thoughts anyway. From sherriola at earthlink.net Wed Sep 14 01:54:44 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:54:44 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape fiddled while Harry burned? was Re: Spinner's End-- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <006f01c5b8cf$4adc4da0$a524f204@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 140133 Pippin: I think Hermione would be very insulted to be told fifteen wasn't a very rational age . And she was with Harry. In fact Snape may have seen in her mind that she felt the whole thing was bloody unlikely. Sherry now: But Hermione is a girl, and like it or not, it's a well proven fact that teenage girls mature faster than boys. Besides, Hermione isn't always very rational. She sure wasn't in HBP! If I'd been Harry, I would have ignored her too. She had the sensitivity of a sledge hammer when trying to convince Harry the vision might not be real. As for Harry immediately informing the order after Arthur's attack, well, he tried with Sirius, too. He tried to contact Sirius. Both Dumbledore and McGonigal were gone, so he couldn't inform them. Even with his deep distrust of Snape, he tried to tell him. But he had absolutely no reason, from his point of view, to have confidence that Snape would do anything about it. He's never totally taken Dumbledore's word on Snape after all. And even after all was said and done, I think he'd have gone after Sirius, just in case. I think most people in the same circumstances would do exactly the same. If they couldn't get in touch with the police and had reason to think a loved one was in danger, I think most anyone would rush off to try to help. Sherry From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Sep 14 02:06:35 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 02:06:35 -0000 Subject: Did Snape think Draco was to kill Harry instead of Dumbledore? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140134 Steph wrote, Has anyone ever wondered if Snape pretended to know about the plan, but figured that it was Harry who was going to be killed? Maybe I missed something, but I was under the impression at first that this had to do with Harry not Dumbledore. And for some reason, even though I do not want to believe that Snape is really evil, it appears more likely that Snape would be inclined to help kill Harry than Dumbledore. vmonte: Yes, several people posted this thought already. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/133284 vmonte responds: So, the idea is that Dumbledore is trying to save Draco's soul and when he sees Snape he pleads with him via legimens/occlumens (whichever applies) to strike him down for Draco's sake? Why not just have Snape grab Draco by the scruff of his collar and drag his ass into hiding instead. Then get his mother and ship them off together (who cares what Draco says--I mean your still keeping him from doing something that is wrong--right? Isn't he going to be in worse trouble in book 7 when Voldemort finds out that he was incapable of completing his mission?). So, instead, Dumbledore says: "I'm dying anyway, the best thing for you to do would be to kill me Snape---pleeeeease. I realize that I've not given you the job of DADA because I was afraid that you might go back to the dark side (and start killing again) but you know what? Forget what I said. JUST DO IT---PLEEEEASE." Doesn't it make more sense that Snape was forced to kill Dumbledore because he made a pact with Narcissa to finish the mission Voldemort set for Draco if Draco wasn't able to do it. If Snape did not kill Dumbledore, Snape would die no? Wasn't that the pact? It seems more in character to me that Snape felt he had to kill Dumbledore because there was no way he was going to die because of Draco's cowardice. I mean Snape evens shoves Draco aside as he walks up to kill Dumbledore. He shows no tender compassion for Draco's struggle. Snape is not the kind of guy that would die for anyone---JMO. I'm betting that Snape had no idea what Draco's mission was at first. And that he just assumed, incorrectly, that Draco was supposed to kill Harry. I could see Snape willingly go into that kind of pact with someone. It's not until later that he realizes that Dumbledore is the target. When he sees that Draco cannot kill, the only thing he can do is murder Dumbledore, grab Draco, and run the hell out of there before anyone realizes what he has done. Vivian From AllieS426 at aol.com Wed Sep 14 02:28:59 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 02:28:59 -0000 Subject: Hearing from the Great Middle & other assorted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140135 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > houyhnhnm: > > Why it's NOT possible that Snape could be ESE (on the side of the DE's): > > He informed the Order of Voldemort's most critical secret. The goal > that was so important to LV that he concentrated all his energies on > it and delayed the start of WWWII for a whole year. > > It doesn't have to be spelled out in block letters. Allie again: In the sense that it delayed Voldemort's return to terrorism, MAYBE I'll give Snape that one. But about the actual prophecy, my take on it is "so what." I think it was much more important for Harry TO know the prophecy than for Voldemort NOT to know it. Harry now knows that he is the ONLY ONE who can defeat Voldemort. This changes everything for him - it's not just about survival anymore, it's up to him to actively seek and destroy Voldemort. OTOH, I don't really see how it changed anything for Voldemort. He's BEEN trying to kill Harry for years already, and there's nothing in the prophecy that tells him how to actually get it done. I supposed he doesn't know that, though. Has he given up on the prophecy now, thinking it's been destroyed? The whole long, convoluted plot of OoTP seemed to me to be contrived for the sole purpose of killing off Sirius Black. Allie From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Sep 14 02:40:38 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 02:40:38 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End--further evidence for DDsMan!Snape?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140136 Neri: > The 3:00 AM estimation (3:04 to be precise) *is* the beginning of > civil twilight as computed by an astronomical software, see the houyhnhnm: Rebecca suggested the latitude of Aberdeen.(Message 140096) I don't think the date is given but it is about a week before the end of term, around the time of the solstice. U.S. Naval Observatory Astronomical Applications Department Sun and Moon Data for One Day The following information is provided for Aberdeen (longitude W2.1, latitude N57.1): Wednesday 21 June 1995 Universal Time SUN Begin civil twilight 02:03 Sunrise 03:12 Sun transit 12:10 Sunset 21:08 End civil twilight 22:18 (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneDay.html) Neri: > 1. Order members regularly assisting with security inside Hogwarts, > apparently without most of the students being the wiser. This makes > calling in Order backup a much more plausible action for Snape. houyhnhnm: That was a year later, after LV had come out into the open and Dumbledore had been exonerated. The situation was very different at the time Umbridge caught Harry in the fire. DD was on the run. The Order was threatened by the Ministry, which had seized control of Hogwarts in the person of Dolores Umbridge, more than it was threatened by Voldemort at that time. Neri: > As I wrote, it wouldn't be politic of him to bring > up this whole issue, which is probably why he didn't, > although Voldy must know that Snape needed to alert the Order at > some point if he were to maintain his cover. houyhnhnm: Why? I'm not able to imagine your scenario. How would Voldemort know that Snape needed to alert the Order? Snape would have had to tell him. Tell Voldemort that he sabotaged LV's most important mission, got a dozen of his Death Eaters sent to Azkaban, outed him to the Ministry of Magic, and got DD back in the good graces of the WW again? And Voldemort just waved his hand and said "Well, you had to maintain your cover"? I think Snape would be dead, loyal DE or not. From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Wed Sep 14 02:46:36 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 02:46:36 -0000 Subject: That darn Prophecy again.. Re: Thin air/Choices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140137 Peaches wrote: > > My question is this: if an act of extreme evil can create a horcrux > might an act of extreme love do the same? When Lily sacrificed > herself to save Harry, could a bit of her soul have been retained in > Harry? I've been looking at all the references to Harry > having "Lily's eyes", and the saying goes "the eyes are the window to the soul." Juli Welcome Peaches! I don't think an act of extreme love could create an Horcrux (I still believe it's got a silent H), it would create an Un-Horcrux. The opposite. Remember that 'good' people have complete sould, so if you really love someone, then your sould would be incomplete? it doesn't make any sense to me. The Un-Horcrux (or whatever you may call the opposite), I believe, is when your soul grows, so Lily, by giving her life for Harry, actually gave Harry a bigger soul, therefore the whole 'power he does not know' thing, and Voldemort's incapability to posess Harry. On a different topic, I've been reading all the Prophesy related posts, and I think we're forgeting a very important piece of information: Prophesies don't always come true, they don't have to come true. If the prophesy was never made, would Harry be "the Chosen One"? Nope. The prophesy is actually the reason it will (or could) fulfill itself. Like the Oedipus story, if the prophesy hadn't been made, would Oedipus have killed his father and married his mother? no, the prophesy created the conditions to make it happen. Do I think Harry is the only one that can kill/destroy/vanquish Voldemort? Yes and No. Yes because he is the only one who 1)knows the prophesy, 2)knows about the horcruxes. No because either Ron or Hermione coul do it for Harry, and also because given the case when Harry actually destroys the remaining horcruxes, then "anyone" could kill Voldemort, a simple AK could do it. But will anyone besides Harry actually do it? Nope, because both Harry and Voldemort have chosen to believe the prophesy, and they will make sure it is fulfilled. Juli From darkcorgi at yahoo.com Wed Sep 14 02:27:20 2005 From: darkcorgi at yahoo.com (Corgi) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 19:27:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Did Snape think Draco was to kill Harry instead of Dumbledore? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050914022720.70177.qmail@web50001.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140138 houyhnhnm: I don't believe Snape agreed to the vow because he was willing to kill Harry. I don't think he planned to kill anybody. I believe he was so complacent about his own cleverness, he simply took one risk too many. I agree with the theory put forth by others that the UV was the first manifestation of the DADA curse and that the curse worked through the character flaw its victims. Snape's was intellectual hubris. Corgi: I'll have to agree with you on that. Snape made some very poor decisions and took an extremely big risk. Snape has a tendency to be his own worst enemy and for proof I'd like you all to cast your minds back to the Moody!Crouch's attempt to kill Harry scene in book four. When Crouch was gloating on how much favor he was going to get from Voldemort Harry saw three ghostly/shadowy figures forming in the foe glass. After Crouch was subdued Snape looked into the foe glass and saw himself. One wonders how much of the many predicaments during his school years and later where due to him making poor decisions. Have fun, Corgi --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Sep 14 03:06:32 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 03:06:32 -0000 Subject: That darn Prophecy again.. Re: Thin air/Choices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140139 Ceridwen: I'm so far behind in answering! I don't know if I can even remember all the points I wanted to make, questions to ask! Sarquel: >So, heaven knows what powers are, but it appears that they do not >reside in the soul. I suspect that they might reside in the hand ? >after DD destroyed the Horcrux and his hand died his powers were >greatly diminished ? Snape and I think DD says so. Correct me if I'm >wrong. We also know that there is a connection through the mind >which could imply legilimency and that being in close physical >proximity to LV makes Harry's scar hurt. I'm thinking that, wherever powers reside (I'd say soul), they need a tool or outlet to unleash them. So, a hand is necessary as well. And, IMO, it must be a dominant hand to release the most effective use of those powers. Yes, Snape (in Spinner's End) and DD (on the tower) both say that Dumbledore's powers have decreased. My thought was that it was because of his dominant or wand hand being damaged. Like writing, he can do it with his non-dominant hand, but not nearly as well nor as naturally. On possible legilimency, maybe. Voldemort is a superb Legilimens, so everyone says. This power, as well as Parseltongue, could have passed into Harry at GH. But, I think the scar itself, horcrux or no (please, no!), is some sort of gateway into Harry's mind that was opened in the failed murder attempt, and that the connection that was forged is enough, even without a soul-piece, to operate even now, like a phone line left open, where people at both ends can hear what's going on at the other end, when they try to pick up the receiver. But, maybe it is Legilimency. In a different and stronger form. This has never happened before, to anyone's knowledge, so no one knows exactly what to expect, least of all, us. Sarquel: >The nature of Harry's access to LV seemed to change after GoF >rebirth. When some of Harry was put into LV, his blood, Harry >started to experience Voldemort's emotions. Now, I'm going to >suggest a two way link here. *(snip)* I hadn't thought of that possibility before. Could be, though. Dumbledore got twinkly at the thought of them sharing blood. There must be *something* working there. Not sure if the blood is the seat of emotions, but since I can't think of an alternative, and this makes sense, I'll go for it. Oh. Got another possible backup for this theory: In GoF, Voldemort takes Harry's blood. The next year, Dumbledore assigns Occlumency lessons. Harry has dreams, and Voldemort will sooner or later notice the enhanced connection. *sigh* Could Dumbledore's twinkle only mean that he thought he had the perfect way to make Harry and Snape bond, or at least stop being enemies? Even if not, and I'm really hoping not, the enhancement must have come in GoF, and the most glaring change is the use of Harry's blood to not only fill V's veins, but to help create his new body. Sarquel: >The one with the power to vanquish: *(snip)* >A little piece of each of them resides in the other, and is still >connected to its original owner. *(snip)* >Neither can live while the other survives: *(snip)* >They cannot live freely, express their free will, because of the >presence of the other within them. *(snip)* >Either must die at the hand of the other: *(snip)* >this needs much more thouht before I commit it to a post. Ceridwen: Maybe that's why Dumbledore twinkled. Voldemort is continually enhancing each part of the prophecy as he tries desperately to counter it. He went to kill Harry and ended up marking him; he takes his blood and becomes bound to Harry as he bound Harry to him in the weird way we're discussing, all those years ago; the difference between living and existing is familiar to everyone, I think, but to think of it as having an unwelcome invader inside of one puts it at a different level. I'm wondering exactly which part of the prophecy Voldemort was told now. I thought I knew, I really did, but we're going off on so many tangents that I'm just not sure any more! And Trelawney's interesting revelation about the Snape disturbance throws another brick into things. Sarquel: >I also have a problem with the whole notion of Harry surviving an >AK. If Lily stepped in front of him, then she took the hit of the >AK and it never got to Harry. Ceridwen: Same as the prophecy problem I've developed, and now I'm not so sure. I really need to know how this played out, some sort of John Madden diagrams of who moved where and when, and what everyone else was doing, *might* help, but I doubt it. I got confuzzled at Valky's explanation of how the rebounding AK was meant to kill whoever was harming Voldemort, which ended up being Voldemort himself. Which sounds good, until I try to imagine the step-by-step in my mind and come up with the same thing you did. *sigh* Peaches: >My question is this: if an act of extreme evil can create a horcrux >might an act of extreme love do the same? Ceridwen: I've wondered if there was some way to make a non-murder version of a horcrux, which of course wouldn't be a horcrux but something else, IMO. I wondered that ever since Harry found the fake locket lying next to Dumbledore. Souls are released at death, can they move independently to anther object? Or do whole souls, ones not torn by murder, just move on to the afterlife? I also am hammering merrily away at the possiblity that the soul- fragment in a horcrux will enter whoever is nearest, so long as they're alive, when the horcrux is either deactivated or destroyed. I forget who first mentioned this, but it just seems so right, and it explains (to me, anyway) Dumbledore's withered hand, and why Harry could 'kill' the diary in CoS without problems since he's got something of Voldemort (soul-piece, powers, something signature) inside of him that prevents his premature death from the new invading piece (Voldemort's soul-rides in animals killed them prematurely). Brothergib: >I agree about the piece of Voldie's soul floating around GH. My >confusion starts with the fact that Voldemort killed James, but not >Lily! Bearing in mind that to split the soul you need to commit >murder, it does tend to suggest that Voldemort used James to split >the soul (particularly if the soul is then floating around when >Voldemort faces Harry). Ceridwen: It also provides *part* of the answer as to why Lily didn't have to die: the soul was already freshly torn from killing James. Brothergib: >Which then leads to the probability that Voldemort did not intend to >kill Harry. Surely if Voldemort was going to set up a Horcrux that >night (other than Harry), he would have used Harry's death to split >his soul!! Ceridwen: But, I'm not convinced of that. True, Lily didn't have to die, and killing James already tore V's soul. But, OTOH, it could be that the only reason either James or Lily died was because they got in the way of Voldemort killing Harry. Which would be a given, since parents who care, will protect their children. V doesn't make a horcrux out of every killing; he's interested in the magical properties of seven yet we know he's killed more than seven people in his life. Kill James, Kill Lily, Harry would still be the target since V has determined that he's the child in the prophecy (or, he's on his way to the Longbottom's house next and is conveniently killed). Brothergib: >More importantly is Voldemort's indication to DD, that if he killed >Harry at this point, then he would kill Voldemort. Is Voldemort >suggesting that DD knows that Harry is a Horcrux and can therefore >rid the world of Voldemort if he is willing to sacrifice Harry? Could be. I have reservations, though. First, it could be that V's insistence on giving power to the prophecy has indeed imbued it with power, making it impossible for anyone but Voldemort to kill Harry before one or the other one dies. Second, I think V is simply trying to get rid of Harry and dumping the blame onto Dumbledore. Harry's death would still be through V's manipulations if Dumbledore killed him; Dumbledore would be guilty of murder and put away; Dumbledore would probably be devastated if he killed Harry, and we saw in HBP how devastation, in love anyway, leads to a diminishing of powers; and we don't know if killing Harry would indeed kill Voldemort. My reaction to this ploy of V's is to say 'get thee behind me, Voldy'. Valky: *(snip)* >Harry's eyes would then essentially reflect the magic straight back >at Voldemort, and Voldemorts curse would activate sending death >straight back at Harry. But the curse cannot kill Harry, because >Harry has done nothing wrong, nothing at all. And the curse will >only destroy the one who tried to kill Voldemort, so it bursts back >out of Harry and straight at Voldemort. Voldemort might be the one >the curse is meant to protect, but he is also the guilty party who >tried to kill the protected, the curse is too crude really to see >the difference and it kills Voldemort, in the meantime blowing up >the house in it's confusion. Ceridwen: I see what you're trying to say, but it's here that I get all confused about what happened in GH to begin with. If Lily stepped in the way of the AK and died for it, then V would have to shoot off another curse. Did he? I don't have the books handy right now and I'm about to turn in. But, to answer this, I really need to know! Valky: >I alos do think that there is a line between unkillable and immortal, >its a shady one, but I think enugh to motivate someone psychotically >obsessed with not dying to cover both angles. Ceridwen: And, he was right in thinking his body would be able to be killed, which would give him an uncomfortable half-life existence, since that's exactly what happened. He was operating on the premise that the prophecy had a fatal power to it, so he would have done everything in his power, IMO, to ensure that he was the one who lived through the confrontation, not Harry. Valky: > > What happens instead is that Voldmeort falls victim to a curse he > > put on his own body, to make it unkillable. The scar therfore is > > where Harry gets touched by that curse which is in line with what > > Hagrid told him in PS/SS, and Dumbledore too was a victim of this > > curse which would explain the lightning shaped crack in the ring. > Jen: >So Voldemort attempts to protect himself with the same curse > that he put on the ring. *(snip)* Ceridwen: A personal mark of sorts, lightning bolt (TM) for a 'Curse by Voldemort'? Now, that I do like! But, going back to the soul and horcruxes and all that other headdesky stuff, the effects on Baby! Harry and HorcruxHunter!Dumbledore are very different. Harry is left with a scar that hurts when in proximity to Voldemort, as well as when he's in direct mental contact with him. Dumbledore is left with a useless wand hand and diminished powers because of it. Harry gains powers from Voldemort. Dumbledore loses power. Whatever is in the scar is protecting Harry from some of the worse side-effects that others apparently must put up with. So, is it part of Voldemort in the scar? Is it Lily's blood protection (and, getting ewww with Saraquel here, when Dumbledore said blood protection, could he have meant it literally, that Lily's actual blood followed V's gifts of powers into the scar and sealed it from any more?)? Is it a combination? Or recognition of that bit of Voldemort by the soul- fragment? Sorry to make this so long, but I'm trying desperately to play catch- up before my mind takes a permanent vacation! Thanks for a very interesting time! Ceridwen. From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Wed Sep 14 03:23:49 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 03:23:49 -0000 Subject: Back to the darn prophecy again WasRe: Hearing from the Great Middle & other In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140140 Allie wrote about Voldemort: He's BEEN > trying to kill Harry for years already, and there's nothing in the > prophecy that tells him how to actually get it done. I supposed he > doesn't know that, though. Has he given up on the prophecy now, > thinking it's been destroyed? Saraquel: Now this has made me leap to the keyboard Allie. I really can't agree with you on that one. I think untangling the meaning of the prophecy is key to how Voldemort can kill Harry. Setting aside for a moment the whole issue of, if he ignored it the whole problem would go away. In those key middle lines - Either must die .... IMO, there is a statement that informs of the nature of the actual entanglement which Harry and Voldemort are in - re powers/soul and blood. I believe that DD wants Harry to keep the prophecy secret, not because he knows Voldemort wants it but knows it is effectively worthless, but because by contemplating it and putting it together with other evidence, DD worked out his plan. Immediately after GH, the only thing DD had to work on was the prophecy and whatever he could glean from what had happened prior to the explosion. Armed with this knowledge, he sealed a charm on Harry and deposited him with the Dursley's deliberately. By the time Harry was eleven, and before LV came back to give him further clues, he had made a plan. We know this from OotP, when he explains to Harry why he didn't tell him about the prophecy sooner. The way he talks about it, DD hasn't changed that plan IMO in the light of further evidence emerging. The prophecy definitely contains something, and DD IMO reckons he has worked it out, and that's why he is so protective of it. I'm still revolving, rather like Professor Trelawny, as the prophecy spins my head! Saraquel From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Sep 14 03:33:32 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 03:33:32 -0000 Subject: Snape fiddled while Harry burned? was Re: Spinner's End-- In-Reply-To: <006f01c5b8cf$4adc4da0$a524f204@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140141 Sherry: *(snip)* >And even after all was said and done, > I think he'd have gone after Sirius, just in case. I think most people in > the same circumstances would do exactly the same. If they couldn't get in > touch with the police and had reason to think a loved one was in danger, I > think most anyone would rush off to try to help. Ceridwen: I think so, too. Logically, given ability, anyone would rush to help. Harry certainly had no reason not to believe his vision, or to know that Voldemort had finally clued into the connection. But, Snape wouldn't necessarily think like that. Particularily because, as someone else has said already, somewhere back in all these posts, he thought they had no way out of the forest and to London. I don't think Snape's a very imaginative man, where Luna Lovegood is extremely imaginative. And wasn't she the one who first suggested riding Thestrals? Did he even know she was there? Didn't she come in with Ginny and Neville, after the trio and Umbridge went off into the forest? I think the first tip-off to Snape that they were off to the Ministry, was when they didn't come back in a reasonable amount of time. He may well have imagined that Harry would have rushed off if he could have, but then, he'd given Snape some sort of message (and we know that Snape is a Legilimens now, so he most likely did get the message, might even have had a private laugh later on at the cryptic spoken message), and to Snape's knowledge, was relying on the Order to deal with it. And, the Order wasn't going to do a thing, since Sirius was safely at Grimmauld Place, until they found out that the DA had gone to London. Obviously a trap. But, finding out they weren't in the forest after all, had to be done first. And, if Snape was satisfied that Sirius wasn't at the Ministry, he might not even have kept too close tabs on the kids after his initial floo to #12. When he noticed them missing, too, there are other things in the forest that could have done something to them, the Centaurs and Aragog come to mind. I think his not knowing they had a way to the Ministry fouled him up here. And, I don't know if Snape would do it if he was in Harry's place. Which would certainly color his perception of what might be going on. As I said, I don't think he's very imaginative. If he wouldn't do it, he wouldn't think someone else might, until he's forced to admit the belated obvious. IMO. Ceridwen. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Sep 14 03:53:34 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 03:53:34 -0000 Subject: Snape loved Lilly In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140142 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "herreid55555" wrote: > I'm new here and may have missed an extensive thread concerning this > topic... > > Snape was in love with Lilly - perhaps the only girl that showed him > any compassion - and was helping LV find the Potters on the > understanding that LV would spare Lilly and that Snape could have her > when Harry was dead. But when LV killed Lilly too Snape was filled > with remorse and joined DD for revenge and redemption. > > > Herreid. Valky: Hello Herreid, I'd just like to extend my welcome to you, and to all new members! Some would say, you've come to the right place. But in case you haven't had a Lollipop waved under your nose yet.. Don't forget to check out Fantastic Posts, theres a link on the Home page of HPFGU, scan through Hypothetic Alley, and you'll find to your sweet delight that there are many Snape/Lily shippers about and there is positively mountains of reading for you on the subject. I'm sure noone will object if you ressurrect a few older discussions that interest you, also. Enjoy! Valky Also recommending all Newbies remeber to check out the Fantastic Posts section and the Database of Recommended posts. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Sep 14 04:36:54 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 04:36:54 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End--further evidence for DDsMan!Snape?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140143 > houyhnhnm: > > Rebecca suggested the latitude of Aberdeen.(Message 140096) I don't > think the date is given but it is about a week before the end of term, > around the time of the solstice. > > U.S. Naval Observatory > Astronomical Applications Department > > Sun and Moon Data for One Day > > The following information is provided for Aberdeen (longitude W2.1, > latitude N57.1): > > Wednesday > 21 June 1995 Universal Time > > SUN > Begin civil twilight 02:03 > Sunrise 03:12 > Sun transit 12:10 > Sunset 21:08 > End civil twilight 22:18 > > (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneDay.html) Neri: Yes, your numbers are very close to Shawn and Steve's numbers in the posts I mentioned up-thread. What you forgot is summer daylight saving time. Add one hour to all your times and you get approximately the times I used in my timeline. If you think wizards don't use DST, that doesn't really matter. All the important canon times in this timeline are relative to the sun, not hours on the clock, so DST is just a convention here. If you don't use it everything changes nominally by one hour and the period of Snape's delay stays the same. > houyhnhnm: > > That was a year later, after LV had come out into the open and > Dumbledore had been exonerated. The situation was very different at > the time Umbridge caught Harry in the fire. DD was on the run. The > Order was threatened by the Ministry, which had seized control of > Hogwarts in the person of Dolores Umbridge, more than it was > threatened by Voldemort at that time. > Neri: Still, we don't know of any aurors or Ministry people at Hogwarts during the day of the DoM battle. Only Umbridge was there, and she ran to the forest. The Inquisitorial Squad was flattened by Ron and Co. so I see no reason why Snape couldn't bring in disguised Order members. The evidence from HBP only goes to show that this isn't impossible for some mysterious canon reason we aren't aware of. > houyhnhnm: > > Why? I'm not able to imagine your scenario. How would Voldemort know > that Snape needed to alert the Order? Snape would have had to tell > him. Tell Voldemort that he sabotaged LV's most important mission, > got a dozen of his Death Eaters sent to Azkaban, outed him to the > Ministry of Magic, and got DD back in the good graces of the WW again? > And Voldemort just waved his hand and said "Well, you had to maintain > your cover"? I think Snape would be dead, loyal DE or not. Neri: The question is if Voldemort gave Snape any orders *before* the operation. In Spinner's End Snape said that he did get orders to "stay behind". If this was indeed so, Snape might have told Voldemort: "Master, as the last Order member at Hogwarts I'll be expected to look after Potter. If I never contact them to report that he's missing this is likely to blow my cover, and you would lose your agent inside the Order". At this point Voldemort would say either: "I don't care, this is more important than your cover" or he'd say: "Well then, only when you're sure it's too late for the Order to save Potter, then you can alert them, and it's up to you to find a good excuse why you were delayed. I'm sure you'll manage something". If Snape wasn't warned at all, not even "just stay out of it", then Voldemort can't expect him to know what should he do when Potter gets a vision about Sirius in the DoM, and he can hardly blame Snape for attempting to maintain his cover. Neri From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Wed Sep 14 06:11:26 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 06:11:26 -0000 Subject: That darn Prophecy again.. Re: Thin air/Choices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140144 Hi, prophetic seers, OK time to headdesk again. This time to try and pull things out of the wealth of speculation which now lies before us. Yes, I do believe you can be too rich! First, just a point which has sprung to mind about the gleam in DD's eye. Maybe, with the knowledge of Harry's blood going into a reconstituted Voldemort, DD saw some of the middle part of the prophecy being fulfilled. Maybe, he had interpreted the prophecy to mean that they both needed to have a bit of the other in them for it to work and had been wondering or waiting for that to happen. So the gleam is, that that part of the prophecy seems to have been properly set up now to be fulfilled, so that would renew his faith in it *all* being fulfilled, and strengthen his faith in his own plan. The fact that he looked downcast afterwards, is that this information did nothing to tell him who would triumph in the end. Just a thought! Ceridwen wrote: I'm so far behind in answering! I don't know if I can even remember all the points I wanted to make, questions to ask! Saraquel: You are so not alone, Ceridwen! So I'm going to start from the beginning of the thread and pick up some points as I go along, with no attempt to weave them into a comprehensible whole. I'll choose ones which I think other people haven't already ably addressed. You have been warned. Valky wrote: 1. Is an Horcrux an intrinsic part of Voldemorts life and death? Or is it a separate and distinct object once removed from the original body, and therefore unrelated to the actual death of Voldemort. Saraquel: Personally, I think canon reveals that the severed portion of the soul is a separate entity which does not return to Voldemort on the destruction of a Horcrux. IMO, DD's statement to Harry about the fact that Voldemort did not know about the destruction of the Diary clearly implies this. I have speculated in the past that in order to go beyond the veil, you need a whole soul and a body (I won't repeat the arguments here). If going beyond the veil is the process/event of dying/death, then having only a fragment of the whole of his original soul, would prevent Voldemort from going through the veil/dying. Hence comments made in the book about Voldemort not being able to die. To me, the problem in the prophecy is that at the beginning it talks about vanquishing Voldemort, but later on says, either must *die*. So that's rather a large problem if my above thinking has any merit. In the rebirthing scene, Voldemort talks about settling for his old mortal body again. So there seems to be an emphasis on bodies when talking about death. Well after those earth shattering, never before thought of revelations, I'll go on to the next point :-) Ceridwen wrote: Because I don't think Voldemort would be damaged by retrieving a piece of his own soul from a horcrux, as Dumbledore was. The soul- piece would recognize him as its owner. And, it seems, it would recognize, on some deep inner level, Harry as the same. Saraquel: It occurs to me that when Harry destroyed the diary in CoS, the soul piece, or part of it, was already inhabiting the body it had made out of Ginny's life force. It was almost about to break free of the diary. So when Harry plunged the fang into the diary he was not in close proximity to the worst of it. But because there was still a connection between Riddle and the Diary, Riddle copped for it. Whereas, presumably, when DD was dealing with the ring, he was in very close proximity to it. Ceridwen wrote: Still, if this was accidental, a phenomenon of Nature rather than of will, it would be different than deliberately creating a horcrux, or even deliberate possession. Either it is some form of possession, and would have killed Baby!Harry before long, if the soul-piece was embedded inside of him. Saraquel: Good thinking here Ceridwen. The fact that possession kills the possessed, seems to me to be one of the stronger argument we can muster for Harry *not* being an accidental horcrux, after all he is very alive and kicking some 16 years later. If the reason he is not dying is because of the protection of Lily's blood, then expect him to start pegging out soon. Great birthday present that one. Although, yes, if Nagini is a Horcrux, why is she not dying as we write? Either that says that a Horcrux *is* different from possession and a living horcrux does not kill its host, or, Nagini is not a horcrux either. I do think that DD has made a cockup somewhere in his where-are-the-horcruxes theory. I think this is quite possibly his huger mistake ? rather than being anything involving Snape. Brothergib replied to Valky's post: I think you are saying that, in the end, it is one of Voldemort's own Horcruxes that will be his undoing. However, I still feel that JKR makes far too much reference to the power that Harry possesses and Voldemort fails to understand! Therefore it still seems most likely that this will be Voldemort's undoing, rather that anything of his own making. Saraquel: I think I'm going with Brothergib on this one, but I do want to compliment Valky on her endless inventiveness, which brings me a great deal of pleasure, and this one has such a beautiful ring to it. I think that JKR may well want to show just how powerful Love is, and having Voldemort effectively destroy himself, would illustrate the point that evil destroys itself, not that love conquers all. But who knows Valky, you could be right. Cerwidwen: > This is where I would, regretfully, slip into thinking Harry is a > horcrux, or else his scar. Yes, the scar, given the choice. > Voldemort kills what he inhabits. If Vapour!Mort was soul or bits > of soul, then this all fits together. > >Jen: You and me both, the 'regretfully' part :). As much as I >personally dislike the idea, the evidence keeps stacking up. Every >argument I think of has a counter-argument. Saraquel: I don't know why I think Harry is not a horcrux, but I've always thought it and I'm hanging onto a bit of driftwood here, in the hope that Book 7 will float by and pick me up and give me a champagne lunch. Please don't desert me or it's going to be a long and lean couple of years :-) I've thought of a lot of arguments for him not being one, and am amazed at the number of posts that proclaim that he is a horcrux without even seeming to realise he might not be. In fact, I remember one not long ago, that said something along the lines of, `and as Harry is a Horcrux then follows.' Maybe I should put all the arguments in one post and see, as Jen says, if there is a counter argument to each and every one of them. But having said that, Jen, yes, I too find the notion that he could well be a horcrux, far too close for comfort, but I don't think you are grasping at straws! Ceridwen: > Harry addressing a deliberate horcrux would have the protection of > a bit of Voldemort on his skin, denying entrance to the soul > fragment in the horcrux, or at least tempering it to be more > readily accepted, or even taking it into the outer skin instead of > into the body at some cell or molecule level. A 'power the Dark > Lord knows not'. Yet, one which makes Harry equal to him in the > treatment of LV's horcruxes. >Jen: This is such a compelling argument, but also the point where >things break down for me re: Harrycrux. The idea of the face-value >reading keeps coming up, and I do think JKR really means for the >power the Dark Lord knows not to be love. Saraquel: Also, if the power which Harry has to fend of Voldemort, is in fact a bit of Voldemort, then how can it be a power the Dark Lord *knows not*? I've got about half way through the posts and run out of steam. So I'm going to sign off here and see how things develop, before commenting further. Saraquel From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Sep 14 07:45:28 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 07:45:28 -0000 Subject: Hearing from the Great Middle...well not really... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140148 vmonte responds: Something that I find interesting in the Snape debates is that nothing JKR says in her interviews about Snape is ever considered as canon evidence. Recently JKR responded to an interviewer that she has never intentionally misled anyone regarding any of her characters (although she does say she may have needed to change something minor? but never a major plot point). If we are to take JKR's comments as for the most part being canon, then you will notice that she is very consistent in her comments regarding Snape. Snape is a "very sadistic teacher, loosely based on a teacher" JKR had. Snape is the type of teacher that abuses his power, and that one of the shabbiest things you can do in life is too bully children. Snape is not a pleasant person at all. Apparently, Snape is so unpleasant, that after book 5 came out, JKR told an interviewer that they shouldn't think that Snape was too nice, and that it was worth keeping an eye on him...well we know what happened in book 6. After book 6 came out JKR mentioned that someone had loved Snape and that fact made him more culpable than Riddle, who was never loved. Culpable of what? JKR also worries about her female fans that are attracted to Snape (Draco is included in this comment). She states: "Girls, stop going for the bad guy. Go for a nice man in the first place." When someone asked her if Snape would ever fall in love she commented: "That's a horrible idea," and no one on earth would want Snape to fall in love with them. Don't you think it's interesting that Snape never talks about Lily? He hates Harry because Harry reminds him of James, but what about Lily? What did he feel for her? Because he doesn't treat Harry nice for her sake either. And it's obvious that he is hiding something. What does Snape see when he looks into Harry's eyes I wonder? If no woman would want this guy to fall in love with her what does it mean that JKR says he is a "bad guy?" Finally, what would a "bad guy" do if he couldn't get what he wanted? Vivian http://www.madamscoop.org/themes/snape.htm From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Wed Sep 14 09:31:24 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:31:24 -0000 Subject: That darn Prophecy again.. Re: Thin air/Choices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140149 Saraquel: > I don't know why I think Harry is not a horcrux, but I've always > thought it and I'm hanging onto a bit of driftwood here, in the hope > that Book 7 will float by and pick me up and give me a champagne > lunch. Please don't desert me or it's going to be a long and lean > couple of years :-) OK, although I have always been a believer in Harry Horcrux, I can think of an alternative. It is basically a reworking of a post I sent many moons ago. I will attempt to set the scene!! The actual thought that started this theory was 'Is there a magical equivalent of Blood Brothers'. >From the Sorting Hat in OOTP, we know that Gryffindor and Slytherin were the best of friends. 'Blood' is a huge thematic theme throughout the HP series. What if Godric & Slytherin had made a magical blood pact, that would ensure that they would protect one another. Would this be passed to the descendents? Is Harry a descendent of Gryffindor? If so, then Voldemort had definitely killed one Gryffindor that night and maybe had activated this magical pact in some way. Perhaps Lily's sacrifice coupled with this ancient pact gave Harry an extremely powerful shield that repelled the AK. Perhaps the pact was worded in such a way, that if either attempted to mortally wound the other, there would be some kind of power transference?? Believe me, I can pick many holes in this myself, but some variation of this Blood Pact, is what gives Harry many of Voldemort's powers!! Brothergib Ohh, hang on. Just thought of something else. Will post it in another post!! From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Wed Sep 14 09:35:44 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:35:44 -0000 Subject: Harry the EX-Horcrux Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140150 OK, I've just had a thought. A lightning shaped mark was left on the ring after DD had destroyed the Horcrux. What if Voldemort had succeeded in making Harry a Horcrux that night at GH. But the love flowing through him from his mother's sacrifice had violently expelled the Horcrux. This left the lightning shaped scar (as with the ring) and destroyed GH as well as Voldemort. Harry would possess many of Voldemort's powers having once been touched by Voldemort's soul, but would not technically be a Horcrux any longer!! The simplest explanations are always the best!! Brothergib From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Wed Sep 14 11:09:52 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:09:52 -0000 Subject: Keep Harry Horcrux Free Challenge! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140151 >Cerwidwen wrote: > This is where I would, regretfully, slip into thinking Harry is a > horcrux, > >Jen: You and me both, the 'regretfully' part :). As much as I >personally dislike the idea, the evidence keeps stacking up. Every >argument I think of has a counter-argument. > >Saraquel: >I don't know why I think Harry is not a horcrux, but I've always >thought it I've thought of a lot of arguments for him not >being one, Maybe I should put all the arguments in one post >and see, as Jen says, if there is a counter argument to each and >every one of them. Saraquel: OK, I'm coming out fighting ? here's the list in no particular order, some of them have already had counter-arguments against them, but not all. Please feel free to either come up with a counter argument, or add to the list! 1 )Evidence from Chamber of Secrets. The Horcrux in the diary fed off Ginny in order to bring itself to life. If Harry was a Horcrux, intentional or not, that piece of soul would have been really trying to suck the life out of him and bring itself to life, particularly as Voldemort lost his body in the attempt. Although, we can see dark influences in Harry's nature ? the attempts at unforgivable curses for instance ? it doesn't seem to me that he has had to fight off the attempts of a Horcrux to bring itself to life. Plus, Harry was only a baby when this event occurred so absolutely helpless. 2)Why does Voldmort need to use legilimency? If Harry was a Horcrux, embodied Voldemort wouldn't need to access Harry's mind through legilimancy, the Horcrux would presumably do it for him and Voldemort would know simply by being aware of that part of his soul. If Voldemort suspected that Harry was a Horcurx, which surely he must have thought about, he would have made efforts to re- connect with that part of himself and not IMO be so dismissive of Harry and so quick to AK him at the Ministry, knowing that he was AKing his own soul. 3)Dumbledore in CoS Uk Ed COS p245 "Unless I'm much mistaken, he transferred some of his own powers to you the night he gave you that scar. Not something he intended to do, I'm sure " "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" Harry said thunderstruck. "It certainly seems so." DD seems to think that what was transferred to Harry was Voldemort's *powers* not a bit of his soul. 4)Wizards and Muggles This one is my favourite and I think the most difficult to counter. Presuming that both wizards and muggles both have souls - there is no cannon evidence to support this, but I feel reasonably confident that it is so. The difference between muggles and witches (let's have gender balances here) is their magical ability ? their powers. It therefore seems to me that magical powers are a separate entity to the soul. Hence making Harry a horcrux would not necessarily endow him with Voldemort's powers. So if you then argue that some powers were also transferred when Harry was made a horcrux ? I simply reply, why bother with the soul bit ? why not just leave it at powers? 5) Dumbledore in HBP UK Ed p473 "I am sure that he was intending to make his final Horcrux with your death. As we know, he failed." I really think DD would have thought about the accidental scenario. Plus 3 courtesy of Jen in post 140041 6) Even though I personally love the idea Harry is gifted in destroying the Horcruxes in a way DD is not, the diary did not have any curses upon it the way the ring did. So we can't know that for sure yet. 7) Harry did not feel any affinity at all for the locket at 12 GP, if indeed it is a Horcrux, nor could he open it, same as the others present. 8) In the cave, DD said: "I think we must resign ourselves to the fact that they [Inferi] will, at some point, realize we're not Lord Voldemort." (chap. 26, p. 564) And they do!! I know this is pitiful little evidence, but I think if Harry is somehow recognized to have part of Voldemort in him, the Inferi would not bother him. I'd also like to thank Brothergib for having mercy on me and suggesting a wonderfully fanciful theory to get Voldemort's powers into Harry. I loved it, but think, as you said in your second post, the simplest explanations are always the best! >Borthergib wrote: >What if Voldemort had succeeded in making Harry a Horcrux that >night at GH. But the love flowing through him from his mother's >sacrifice had violently expelled the Horcrux. This left the >lightning shaped scar (as with the ring) and destroyed GH as well >as Voldemort. Harry would possess many of Voldemort's powers having >once been touched by Voldemort's soul, but would not technically be >a Horcrux any longer!! Yes Brothergib, this has promise! It had occurred to me that the scar might represent something coming *out* of Harry, rather than something going in. I was toying with an idea that Voldemort was planning to make Harry into a Horcrux at GH, the ultimate humiliation for Harry ? to in effect be ruled by Voldemort's soul from babyhood. But then that wouldn't square with him wanting to use Harry's murder to do it ? I ended up with a Horcrux!Inferi Saraquel From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Wed Sep 14 11:52:30 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:52:30 -0000 Subject: Keep Harry Horcrux Free Challenge! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140152 > Yes Brothergib, this has promise! It had occurred to me that the > scar might represent something coming *out* of Harry, rather than > something going in. I was toying with an idea that Voldemort was > planning to make Harry into a Horcrux at GH, the ultimate > humiliation for Harry ? to in effect be ruled by Voldemort's soul > from babyhood. But then that wouldn't square with him wanting to > use Harry's murder to do it ? I ended up with a Horcrux!Inferi > > Saraquel Yes, the other huge problem with this comes from the mouth of the author herself; `...I had said that explicitly the killing curse rebounded on Voldemort...' Edinburgh "cub reporter" press conference, ITV, 16 July 2005 Which does suggest that Voldemort really was trying to use Harry's death for his final Horcrux. Also, DD's suggestion that Voldemort used Nagini as his final Horcrux, would; 1. explain his snake-like features. 2. suggest that Voldemort failed in generating his final Horcrux at GH Brothergib From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Sep 14 12:37:06 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 12:37:06 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End--further evidence for DDsMan!Snape?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140153 > > Neri: > The question is if Voldemort gave Snape any orders *before* the > operation. In Spinner's End Snape said that he did get orders to "stay > behind". If this was indeed so, Snape might have told Voldemort: > "Master, as the last Order member at Hogwarts I'll be expected to look > after Potter. If I never contact them to report that he's missing this > is likely to blow my cover, and you would lose your agent inside the > Order". > At this point Voldemort would say either: "I don't care, this > is more important than your cover" or he'd say: "Well then, only when > you're sure it's too late for the Order to save Potter, then you can > alert them, and it's up to you to find a good excuse why you were > delayed. I'm sure you'll manage something". Hickengruendler: But in this case, Snape failed and Voldemort should be angry with him. Because no matter if this was his plan or not, Snape alarmed the Order right in time to save Harry. It was not too late. Of course it's possible that Snape didn't expect the kids to fight that well. Maybe he just underestimated them and thought the other DE's had already finished them off. But even if, than it's still likely that Voldemort would have blamed Snape for the failing off the mission. And he didn't. It is said in Canon, that he blamed Lucius and wanted revenge, even Bella fell out of his grace, but Snape still seemed to be pretty close to the Big V. And that's not in character for Voldemort if Snape had butchered his job like that. Also, I find it highly problematic to assume that there was a delay, simply by using things like sunrise and sunset. JKR does not always pay attention to such details. She has September 1st on a monday two years in a row, and during their Astronomy OWLs the kids are studying a star that can't even be seen during that time of the year. Inconsistencies regarding the time of the sunset are a much smaller Flint. And Bellatrix said in the chapter "Spinner's End", that the sextet were joined by the Order "in no time". That does not seem to suggest a major delay. Why didn't Snape answer: "No, they did not. I waited quite a long time to inform the Order, just like I told Voldemort I would," if that really were the case? Hickengruendler From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 14 12:59:20 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 12:59:20 -0000 Subject: Hearing from the Great Middle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140154 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > But that's just me. I'm interested in hearing what other members of > the Great Middle think. Marianne: Ditto on your comments re: Snape's mysteriousness. Many people have commented that the aura of mystery around Snape is one of the things they have found fascinating about him. I've never really understood that because I've always felt that DD could explain Snape pretty quickly to Harry in one of his end-of-book summations which would have stripped away a lot of the mystery rather quickly. I'm firmly in the OFH!Snape camp. I'm not going to go through reams of canon, since anyone who's interested can read the past 2 months of Snape posts to look all the arguments. For me, it comes down to my gut feeling of the character. I really don't like Snape. Never have, never will. He embodies too many characteristics that I find not at all admirable. And that's chiefly why I'm not in the ESE camp. I'm trying my utmost to give him the benefit of the doubt. I appreciate reading the comments of Snape supporters because I know I am deeply biased against him. However, should he prove at the end to be ESE, I will feel a great surge of relief and open a bottle of champagne. ESG!Snape doesn't click for me, either, maybe because I've never got a feeling from the character that he believes in fighting for what's right because that's what a moral person is supposed to do. Granted one doesn't have to be a saint to do what's right, but I've never felt that Snape has any aura of selflessness about him; about doing things because they're the right thing to do. Marianne From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Sep 14 13:35:11 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 13:35:11 -0000 Subject: Keep Harry Horcrux Free Challenge! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140155 > Saraquel: > OK, I'm coming out fighting Please feel free to either come up > with a counter argument, or add to the list! Valky: Wohoo! OK Saraquel, you've asked for it.. everything that makes it hard to believe Harry is not a Horcrux coming right up. > > 1 )Evidence from Chamber of Secrets. > The Horcrux in the diary fed off Ginny in order to bring itself to > life. If Harry was a Horcrux, intentional or not, that piece of soul > would have been really trying to suck the life out of him and bring > itself to life, particularly as Voldemort lost his body in the > attempt. Although, we can see dark influences in Harry's nature ? > the attempts at unforgivable curses for instance ? it doesn't seem > to me that he has had to fight off the attempts of a Horcrux to > bring itself to life. Valky: Two words.. Dudley Demented. Yes, I am asking you, what is that terrifying thing Dudley was forced to remember whe the Dementors swooped upon Little Whinging? Lets revisit the model, shall we. In OOtP Mad-Eye Moody scares the wits out of the kids when they overhear him saying that Harry could be getting possessed by Voldemort. Ginny who has experience in being possessed asks Harry, are there ties when you've blacked out, and can't remember what you've done. hMmm Can't rememeber hey? Well Harry certainly cannot *remember anything* in Dudleys life that would classify as a traumatic experience, and what if thats the point.. that Harry can't *remember* it..? Ok, grabbing at thin air, I know. But something Has to explain Dudleys Demented Terror, and I don't think we are told that Riddle terrorises children for mere colour (although we could be, but a theres that repeated plot thing that JKR does to think about). In any case, recall. Vapourmort is helpless, attaching himself to belgian fleas etc to feel alive, The Death Eaters are rounded up and in Azkaban, Dumbledore *knows* how to hide people, fake their death, and conceal them away and Harry stays at Privet drive 100% of the time, Why? To me it certainly does seem like Harry could possibly have been on the verge of being possessed this whole time. However, let me be frank, I am not married to Horcrux Harry. I'd like to come to a separate conclusion that satisfies these problems. Saraquel: > 2)Why does Voldmort need to use legilimency? > If Harry was a Horcrux, embodied Voldemort wouldn't need to access > Harry's mind through legilimancy, the Horcrux would presumably do it > for him and Voldemort would know simply by being aware of that part > of his soul. Valky: No I don't think that this is the nature of Horcruxes as we've been given it in canon. Legilimency would still be necessary even if Harry was a Horcrux I think. We are explicitly given by Dumbledore that Voldemort is probably not aware of his Horcruxes. This of course acts as a balancer too, we, therefore, certainly cannot say, either, that the connection between Harry and Voldemort is because of Harry having accidentally become a Horcrux. In any fashion, the connection, and the scar are additional to, or other than a Horcrux, IMO. Saraquel: > If Voldemort suspected that Harry was a Horcrux, which > surely he must have thought about, he would have made efforts to re- > connect with that part of himself and not IMO be so dismissive of > Harry and so quick to AK him at the Ministry, knowing that he was > AKing his own soul. Valky: I agree to some degree. I think for certain that the scar itself is not the signature of a Horcrux. For if it was, then Voldmeort will have been aware of a possible Horcrux in Harry since book one or even before this after having come across a rumour about the lightning bolt scar on Harry's head. IMO, if we are going *with* Harry Horcrux, then the scar must be removed from the equation for the reasons Saraquel has stated above. The scar represents something else, it may r may not be something that Voldemort recognises, but it does not (as is apparent to me anyway) indicate that Harry is a Horcrux. OTOH, one can remove the scar from the question, and yet postulate that Harry is possibly a Horcrux. We have seen the scar shape on a Horcrux before, and Moody evidently believed that there were possible indications of Harry being susceptible to possession by Voldemort. There is also the Silver instruments, which Dumbledore used to conclude that two Snakes were in esscence divided. And there is the chance that a Horcrux was made at Godrics Hollow, so hence the very real chance that it ended up in the wrong body/container. Voldemort does not necessarily have to know any of these things as of Book five, but may be aware of them later than this. > 3)Dumbledore in CoS > Uk Ed COS p245 > "Unless I'm much mistaken, he transferred some of his own powers to > you the night he gave you that scar. Not something he intended to > do, I'm sure " > "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" Harry said thunderstruck. > "It certainly seems so." > DD seems to think that what was transferred to Harry was Voldemort's > *powers* not a bit of his soul. Valky: Yes and no.. Dumbledore certainly does say that he believed powers had been transferred to Harry during the attack. But nothing here precludes a soul piece being in Harry "also*. I think we know it doesn't argue against a Horcrux exactly, but this I think is very important. We *should* be focusing on the powers and on why Voldmeort would be in the process of giving Parseltongue to something when he tried to AK Harry. An inanimate Horcrux just doesn't make any sense, if he's throwing around Parseltongue, right? I am afraid that Horcrux!Equal-She-Mate!Lily does foot the bill for a transfer of the power of Parseltongue, a rare power that would make secret and significant communication a real thrill for the DE beholder. One reason why I flagged that theory, awful as it was. > Saraquel: > 4)Wizards and Muggles > This one is my favourite and I think the most difficult to counter. > Presuming that both wizards and muggles both have souls - there is > no cannon evidence to support this, but I feel reasonably confident > that it is so. The difference between muggles and witches (let's > have gender balances here) is their magical ability ? their powers. > It therefore seems to me that magical powers are a separate entity > to the soul. Hence making Harry a horcrux would not necessarily > endow him with Voldemort's powers. So if you then argue that some > powers were also transferred when Harry was made a horcrux ? I > simply reply, why bother with the soul bit ? why not just leave it > at powers? Valky: Which I do not, and neither think it should be done. My personal take on Godrics Hollow is that we should not be confining the events to one spell from Voldemort one spell from Lily thinking. Since HBP, we are definitely past that, aren't we? We know there was a Horcrux involved, we know that Voldemort knew two lines of the prophecy we know, according to DD as Snape has revealed to him, that at least one of these lines LV knew he applied specific interpretation to to come up with the Potters, we know from JKR that noone could have known what would happen in Godrics Hollow, it had never happened before, and Lily's choice to die was made under a specific set of circumstances which are the crux of the reason why Harry survived.. We are way past trying to just figure out how an AK backfired, we have been shown a very complex graduating formula of protections that LV used for his Locket Horcrux, and a marvellously involved game of real world wizard chess between DD and LV. This grand scale of things, must be taken into account now. There is more than one element at work in Godrics Hollow. Our privileged peek into Voldemorts mastery of magical design in the cave is our best clue, IMO. So what am I saying? I'm saying that a Horcrux, *and* a transfer of powers, *and* a deadly rebounded curse are the *least* amount of variables we should consider. Voldemort, indeed, went to Godrics Hollow to subvert, overturn and not the least defy fate and fortune, not just to shoot green light at a baby. > Saraquel: > 5) Dumbledore in HBP > UK Ed p473 > "I am sure that he was intending to make his final Horcrux with your > death. As we know, he failed." I really think DD would have thought > about the accidental scenario. Valky: Unless it can be prove beynd a shadow of a doubt that Dumbledore lead Harry to discover such a thing, for himself, and with unquestionably good reason to do so, such as Harry would fall down dead the instant he was told which couldn't be good, there is really no answer to this. Dumbledore did not tell Harry that he was a Horcrux. *BUt* Harry knows that Dumbledore thinks Nagini is a Horcrux. And Harry and Nagini share in common, a *lot* of things. This is a simple adding of 2 and 2 to make four to come to the conclusion that Harry may be another *like* Nagini.. So it could almost be said that Dumbledore *has* lead him all the way.. all that is now required is a bulletproof, watertight reason why Dumbledore couldn't tell Harry directly. We don't have that. > > Plus 3 courtesy of Jen in post 140041 > 6) Even though I personally love the idea Harry is gifted in > destroying the Horcruxes in a way DD is not, the diary did not have > any curses upon it the way the ring did. So we can't know that for > sure yet. Valky: I too agree with Jen here, we can't be sure. The Diary may have been the weakest point of all, and the Ring the strongest and best protected. For all we know, that is. What we do know is that Hrry recognised the name on the diary, though he did not remember where from.. hmm theres that not remembering thing again Dumbledore located and recognised the Ring Horcrux by virtue of detective work, thought and logical deduction. This recognition is unique to Harry. But the recognition is of the name, not the object or any sense of its magic.. which supports a hidden connection beteen Tom Riddle and Harry early in his life, as I have submitted above.. and it answers the next question nicely. > Saraquel: > 7) Harry did not feel any affinity at all for the locket at 12 GP, > if indeed it is a Horcrux, nor could he open it, same as the others > present. Valky: Ok first the locket at Grimmauld place is still speculation.. Granted it's a virtual given on a silver platter that it is the Horcrux.. OK I withdraw that argument.. I think it's the Locket Horcrux too. I agree, the fact is that Harry doesn't appear to have an innate affinity for Horcruxes, and certinly no little Voldemort jumped out of Harry screaming "How did THAT get here!!" when he saw it. So this is a pretty solid "I don't think so.." argument against Horcrux!Harry. JKR has however given herself a nice little out by making this all happen less than 24 hrs from the time that Harry had left Privet Drive. If indeed the blood protection in Harry once activated keeps Harry safe from Voldie attack from inside then it would be at it's strongest closer to the time when he has been at Privet Drive. IOW if the Locket had shown up at Christmas with the same results, I would say, yeah JKR shot that one down good and proper, but as it stands, there is no certainty that she has. > Saraquel: > 8) In the cave, DD said: "I think we must resign ourselves to the > fact that they [Inferi] will, at some point, realize we're not Lord > Voldemort." (chap. 26, p. 564) And they do!! I know this is pitiful > little evidence, but I think if Harry is somehow recognized to have > part of Voldemort in him, the Inferi would not bother him. Valky: I do agree. But I have also always wondered why the Dementors took such a particular interest in Harry, just an aside, if they sensed two souls in him, then it would start to make sense why they always wanted to hmm kiss him, buy one get one free no less. eww Okay back to the original question, yes I think this is pretty good as it goes against Horcrux Harry. I think that the boat is similar, it weighs powers, and surely Voldemort in Harry would add up to 2 powerful wizards not one powerful wizard and a young sidekick right? Some of these things get a little confusing, but we can safely say that Harry isn't Lord Voldemort, and perhaps Inferi would recognise LV in some other fashion. It's not strong, but it is in a way.. For now that's my muster on Horcrux Harry. Not enough to come down from the fence on either side yet.. alas.. more fencsitting Valky From moonmyyst13 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 14 14:21:35 2005 From: moonmyyst13 at yahoo.com (K G) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 07:21:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Keep Harry Horcrux Free Challenge! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050914142135.56906.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140156 Yes, the other huge problem with this comes from the mouth of the author herself; `...I had said that explicitly the killing curse rebounded on Voldemort...' Edinburgh "cub reporter" press conference, ITV, 16 July 2005 Which does suggest that Voldemort really was trying to use Harry's death for his final Horcrux. Also, DD's suggestion that Voldemort used Nagini as his final Horcrux, would; 1. explain his snake-like features. 2. suggest that Voldemort failed in generating his final Horcrux at GH Brothergib Okay, Let's assume that Harry was not going to be a horcrux and that he was just going to be a tool to make one. What was going to be the horcrux? My sons and I tend to believe it had to be something, maybe the sword or maybe something as yet unknown, from Griffindor. Godric's Hollow... Godric Griffindor. Somehow it all fits. So what was used? Was it left behind? Where did the sword come from? Was it always at Hogwarts? My theory is that TMR found it in the Chamber of Secrets and was somehow unable to get it out when he left. He came back for it. He was unable to get the teaching position. Did he get someone else to get it out for him? Somehow he got it and kept it for just the right murder. What better than to use the item from SS's "enemy" in the defeat of his "enemy" in order to make his final horcrux? The sword got left behind when LV turned into vapor!Mort and either Hagrid, Snape, or DD found it in the rubble and took it back to Hogwarts. This is gives DD the first real clues about what is going on. I am quite sure someone has come up with this already but with me working 11-12 hours per day, I have not been able to keep up with all of the posts!! moonmyyst Summerland Hills Shelties home of their royal highnesses: Southcrest Faerie Song "Belle", (bi-black), AKC Southcrest Sugar Quill "Honey", (sable/white), AKC Chocolate Sundae Hugs "Hugs", (sable/white), AKC, CGC, IHDA Herding level 1, RA Little Valentine Kisses "Kisses", (sable/white), AKC, CGC Summerland's Blueberry Muffin "Blue", (tri-blue merle), AKC, IHDA Herding level 1 Cerridwyn Summerland Reveille "Revie", (sable/white), AKC and in memory of: Southcrest Phantom Spirit "Ghostie", (bi-black), AKC, 9 time conformation class 1st. --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Wed Sep 14 16:18:43 2005 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:18:43 -0000 Subject: Keep Harry Horcrux Free Challenge! In-Reply-To: <20050914142135.56906.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140157 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, K G wrote: > My sons and I tend to believe it had to be something, maybe the sword or maybe something as yet unknown, from Griffindor. Godric's Hollow... Godric Griffindor. Somehow it all fits. So what was used? Was it left behind? Where did the sword come from? Was it always at Hogwarts? But the sword was used to destroy the diary - so the theory of Horcrux! GG-Sword that gives us the same problem as Horcrux!Harry, unless we want to postulate a sort of civil war between the various fragments of Voldemort's soul. Also, it seems unlikely that Dumbledore, who spent his final year in high-Horcrux-Hunting mode, would have failed to notice this. DD says to Harry in chap. 23 "I am confident, however, that the only known relic of Gryffindor remains safe." So I'm sure that DD ran the sword through his Horcrux-scanner, or whatever magical means are used to detect their presence. It seems likely to me that the locale of Godric's Hollow will prove to some link ot Godric Gyffrindor, which Voldemort was trying to exploit in creating another Horcrux. - CMC From littleleah at handbag.com Wed Sep 14 17:20:10 2005 From: littleleah at handbag.com (littleleahstill) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:20:10 -0000 Subject: Keep Harry Horcrux Free Challenge! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140158 Caius Marcius wrote: >But the sword was used to destroy the diary - so the theory of >Horcrux!GG-Sword that gives us the same problem as Horcrux!Harry, >unless we want to postulate a sort of civil war between the various >fragments of Voldemort's soul. Also, it seems unlikely that >Dumbledore, who spent his final year in high-Horcrux-Hunting mode, >would have failed to notice this. DD says to Harry in chap. 23 "I am >confident, however,that the only known relic of Gryffindor remains >safe." So I'm sure that DD ran the sword through his Horcrux-scanner, >or whatever magical means are used to detect their presence. I believe moonmyyst was suggesting that the sword was the horcrux that Voldemort intended to make with Harry's death, but failed because Harry did not die. So, not a horcrux when it destroys the diary. As moonmyyst suggests, the sword could have been returned to DD, who has kept it safe ever since. It is surprising though that since Harry is well aware of the sword's existence, DD did not mention to him that it had in fact been an intended horcrux; that makes me think either the sword was not the object in question, or DD did not want Harry to ask who it was who was at GH, and retrieved it after Voldemort's vapourisation. Leah Leah From loonyloopyrjl at yahoo.com Wed Sep 14 17:24:09 2005 From: loonyloopyrjl at yahoo.com (loonyloopyrjl) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:24:09 -0000 Subject: Hearing from the Great Middle & other assorted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140159 houyhnhnm wrote: Why it's NOT possible that Snape could be ESE (on the side of the DE's): He informed the Order of Voldemort's most critical secret. The goal that was so important to LV that he concentrated all his energies on it and delayed the start of WWWII for a whole year. It doesn't have to be spelled out in block letters. --- Loony Loopy replies: Where is it in canon that Snape told the Order Voldemort was after the prophecy in the DOM? Loony Loony, who needs this to be spelled out in block letters as her memory might be failing. From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Sep 14 17:43:14 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:43:14 -0000 Subject: Hearing from the Great Middle & other assorted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140160 loonyloopy: > Where is it in canon that Snape told the > Order Voldemort was after the prophecy in the DOM? > Loony Loony, who needs this to be spelled out in > block letters as her > memory might be failing. houyhnhnm: Sometimes it's not where it is; it's where it's not--like the dog that didn't bark in the night. DD has other spies--Lupin among the werewolves, Mundungus in the Wizarding underworld, but there is not any suggestion anywhere that he has another spy right next to Voldemort. If such a whole cloth invention were to be proposed then it would be necessary to explain why DD risks his potion master by sending him back to LV. And the whole issue of DD's trust of Snape would have to be revisited. The Order has people standing guard over the prophecy in August. Where else could the information have come from? From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Sep 14 18:13:57 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:13:57 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter and Elizabeth Bennet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140162 Jamie" > > p.s. I haven't read Emma(which most know is JKR's favorite Austen > novel), are there eny connections there? Potioncat: I just finished "Emma" and highly recommend it. The Shippers in our group as well as the Anti-shippers would particularly enjoy it. The main character spends far too much time "shipping" and the results are well... The most obivious Harry Potter connection is the vast number of characters who aren't quite what they seem... or who aren't what Emma thinks they seem. I don't want to give too much away. (Don't read the last page first, like I did.) And the part that is straight out of HBP, or perhaps reflected "Emma" in HBP is when Emma and Mr. Knightly are discussing a letter. I forgot to mark the chapter and can't find it now. At any rate, the two are arguing about the handwriting and what it says about a person. One character thinks the handwriting looks like a woman's because it is so small. The other insists it is small but strong. It reminded me of Harry and Hermione arguing about the HBP's handwriting in the Potions book. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Sep 14 18:22:21 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:22:21 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End--further evidence for DDsMan!Snape?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140163 > Hickengruendler: > > But in this case, Snape failed and Voldemort should be angry with > him. Because no matter if this was his plan or not, Snape alarmed the > Order right in time to save Harry. It was not too late. > > Of course it's possible that Snape didn't expect the kids to fight > that well. Maybe he just underestimated them and thought the other > DE's had already finished them off. But even if, than it's still > likely that Voldemort would have blamed Snape for the failing off the > mission. And he didn't. It is said in Canon, that he blamed Lucius > and wanted revenge, even Bella fell out of his grace, but Snape still > seemed to be pretty close to the Big V. And that's not in character > for Voldemort if Snape had butchered his job like that. > Neri: I was just running possible scenarios there. I didn't say it happened that way or the other. It is also entirely possible that Snape was personally worried about his cover, and so he independently warned the Order after a delay he judged to be long enough, and never told Voldy about it. I'd say there are too many unknowns and too many optional scenarios to conclude that it was ESE!Snape, OFH!Snape or merely Loyal-But-Irresponsible!Snape. But in any case we still have a 5 hrs hole to explain. Now, If *I* were the evil overlord here, I'd be orchestrating such a complex and critical operation personally from a control room, using immediate means of communication, such as two-way mirrors or maybe a Dark Mark code (one burn for plan A, two burns for plan B and the like). And then Lucius would of course send a message to the control room: "Potter picked it! We got him now!" and then I'd send a message to Snape: "Lucius reports he got it! Give him 30 minutes to secure everything and clear the place, then warn the Order. We'll send an anonymous message to the aurors so they'll catch Dumbledore breaking into a top-secret Ministry department together with half the Order and a convicted criminal Black. Muhahaha!" Then of course I wouldn't be able to blame Snape when I personally gave him the command, so it would all fall on Lucius' and Bella's heads. No way to know that it really happened that way, of course. It just makes sense to me, but that's probably the bias of my meager military background. Although the fact that Voldy appeared in the MoM shortly after everything went pear shape from his PoV suggests he was somehow keeping a close eye on the operation. > Hickengruendler: > Also, I find it highly problematic to assume that there was a delay, > simply by using things like sunrise and sunset. JKR does not always > pay attention to such details. She has September 1st on a monday two > years in a row, and during their Astronomy OWLs the kids are studying > a star that can't even be seen during that time of the year. > Inconsistencies regarding the time of the sunset are a much smaller > Flint. And Bellatrix said in the chapter "Spinner's End", that the > sextet were joined by the Order "in no time". That does not seem to > suggest a major delay. Why didn't Snape answer: "No, they did not. I > waited quite a long time to inform the Order, just like I told > Voldemort I would," if that really were the case? > Neri: Ah yes, the Flint defense. For some reason it's never used against Snape, only for him. How do you know JKR didn't actually plan to have an 8 hrs hole, but she had a Flint and that's why we only got a 5 hrs hole? Does Snape has a magical effect on the direction of JKR's mistakes? JKR is indeed slightly flinty in issues that aren't critical for the plot (like the Monday/ September 1st case), and rarely even in critical cases when it's an either/or thing (the wands order in GoF). However, unlike Voldy JKR had already proven her ability to successfully orchestrate complex operations that involve several characters and places in parallel, and even throw in a time travel gambit without confusing any of the times. The OotP climax is critical for the plot. The questions of what were the Order doing during this time and who's responsible for Sirius' death were very important in the narrative. I'd be *very* surprised if JKR doesn't have in her notebooks a table of what each of the characters was doing and when. If she had such a table it would be impossible not to notice a 5 hrs hole, when the whole climax only takes about 12 hrs overall (from the History of Magic exam until the following morning). Her mentions of the sun don't look accidental either. Both the sunset and the dawn are described more than once. The time of Harry and Hermione going to the Forest with Umbridge is described both as well- before-sunset (the sun high above the trees) and as dinner time (the sounds of dinner from the great hall). The only way to significantly shorten the delay is to assume that lunch was very late (about 10 PM), sunset at 11 PM and first light at 1 AM. The hole would then be only about 2 hrs wide, but I can't believe JKR is *that* dumb about times. Neri From ibchawz at yahoo.com Wed Sep 14 18:26:09 2005 From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:26:09 -0000 Subject: Hearing from the Great Middle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140164 > I'm interested in hearing what other members of > the Great Middle think. > > Lupinlore You asked to hear from the "Great Middle", so here are my thoughts. In almost every instance of canon that I have seen used to argue the case for either ESE!Snape or ESG!Snape, there are too may unanswered questions in my mind. Some have answered these questions based on emotion (i.e., whether Snape is "sexy" or not), speculative extrapolations, or personal preference. I'm not saying that these approaches are inappropriate, they just aren't my way. Although I am entertained by reading the emotional and speculation based responses, I'm more of a "just the facts Ma'am", logical kind of thinker. When the facts are either unclear or completely missing, it is difficult to reach a logical conclusion. I decided to put together a Top Ten List as to why I am in the "Great Middle": Number 10 - In PS/SS Snape mutters the counter-curse to save Harry from Quirrell's curse on Harry's broom. We later find out from DD that Snape owes a life debt to James as a result of the prank incident. The unanswered question is: How, exactly, does the life debt work? I have seen speculation that it is / isn't similar to the unbreakable vow, but we have no canon to guide us here. Number 9 - Snape shows favoritism toward Draco and tries to humiliate Harry at every opportunity. The unanswered questions (yes there are several): Does Snape do this out of hatred for James? Is it because Draco's dad is a DE and he needs to put on a show to maintain his double agent cover? Is it because Draco's dad is a DE and he just wants to do his buddy a favor? Is Snape just preparing Harry for the road ahead by force-feeding him humble pie? Is it Snape simply showing favoritism to his own house? Number 8 - DD trusts Snape, but never tells Harry why. The unanswered questions: Why did DD have an unwavering trust in Snape? Why wouldn't he share this with Harry? Is this tied in with the life debt to James? Number 7 - Snape killed DD with the AK. Was it really an AK? Does it matter if it really was an AK or not? Number 6 - DD pleaded with Snape on the tower. The unanswered question is: What was the real meaning of DD pleading with Snape ("kill me to save yourself" or "don't betray my trust in you" or something else)? Number 5 - The whole "Spinner's End" chapter provides very little solid evidence. How much of what Snape said is true and how much is double agent speak? Was the famed "twitch" due to the unexpected third stipulation being added or because he really did not know what the task was? Why was Pettigrew really there? Number 4 - Snape is a gifted occlumens. If he can lie to LV, couldn't he just as easily lie to DD? Since he is a good liar, when is he telling the truth? Number 3 - DD admitted that his mistakes can be "huger". Could his trust in Snape be the "hugest" of these mistakes? Number 2 - Most of the story appears to be written from Harry's point of view. Are we being presented Harry's slant on things or is this more of a pensive rendition of the events? And the Number 1 reason why I am in the "Great Middle" is - (Sorry, while spoofing the "Top Ten List", I could not resist this one.) BIG ASS HAM (BIG Alas Severus Snape Has "Aha!" Moment.) The question is: What was the `Aha'? Am I on the wrong side because LV is going to be killed and I want to be on the winning team? Have I been evil and must I change my ways? Was the `Aha' moment part of his cover to fool DD so he could spy for LV? Why am I on the same side as that Potter brat? IMO, the bottom line is that JKR wrote it this way and she has given clues to fuel both sides of the argument. I guess we will have to wait 2 more years to know for sure where Snape's loyalties lie ibchawz From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Wed Sep 14 18:37:02 2005 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:37:02 -0400 Subject: Snape informed Order about Prophecy? WAS: Re: Hearing from the Great Middle & other assorted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140165 houyhnhnm: The Order has people standing guard over the prophecy in August. Where else could the information have come from? PJ answers: But that's exactly why the information *couldn't* have come from Snape. If it's that obvious to you, then it would surely be just as obvious to LV and Snape would be dead at the start of book 6 . Since Snape is still in his good graces after the MoM fiasco, LV must have hard proof that Snape wasn't the informant. Bella doesn't accuse him of this in Spinner's End either and she's throwing everything she can think of at him. PJ From milcg at yahoo.com Wed Sep 14 17:39:49 2005 From: milcg at yahoo.com (Mil) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:39:49 -0000 Subject: Keep Harry Horcrux Free Challenge! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140166 K G (moonmyyst) wrote: > > My sons and I tend to believe it had to be something, maybe the > > sword or maybe something as yet unknown, from Griffindor. > > Godric's Hollow... Godric Griffindor. Somehow it all fits. So > > what was used? Was it left behind? Where did the sword come > > from? Was it always at Hogwarts? Caius Marcius wrote: > But the sword was used to destroy the diary - so the theory of > Horcrux!GG-Sword that gives us the same problem as Horcrux!Harry, > unless we want to postulate a sort of civil war between the > various fragments of Voldemort's soul. Mil: Actually, no... the sword was used to kill the Basilisk; the Basilisk's FANG was used to destroy the diary... there's the difference... Caius Marcius: > Also, it seems unlikely that Dumbledore, who spent his final year > in high-Horcrux-Hunting mode, would have failed to notice this. > DD says to Harry in chap. 23 "I am confident, however, that the > only known relic of Gryffindor remains safe." So I'm sure that DD > ran the sword through his Horcrux-scanner, or whatever magical > means are used to detect their presence. MIL: But you must remember that Gryffindor's sword didn't become Horcrux!Sword because LV failed to complete the murder; he was Vapormort before he could make his final horcrux... I really like this idea... JMO, of course Back to lurkdome... MIL From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Sep 14 19:23:28 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:23:28 -0000 Subject: Keep Harry Horcrux Free Challenge! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140167 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "saraquel_omphale" wrote: > Saraquel: > 3)Dumbledore in CoS > Uk Ed COS p245 > "Unless I'm much mistaken, he transferred some of his own powers to > you the night he gave you that scar. Not something he intended to > do, I'm sure " > "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" Harry said thunderstruck. > "It certainly seems so." > DD seems to think that what was transferred to Harry was Voldemort's > *powers* not a bit of his soul. Geoff: In support of the above, on the The Old Crowd sister group, I wrote in message 3196 a couple of days ago: '"You can speak Parseltongue, Harry," said Dumbledore calmly, "because Lord Voldemort - who is the last remaning descendant of Salazar Slytherin - can speak Parseltongue. Unless I'm much mistaken, he transferred some of those powers to you the night he gave you that scar. Not something he intended to do, I'm sure..." "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" Harry said, thunderstruck. "It certainly seems so." ' (COS "Dobby's Reward" UK edition p.245) Dumbledore speaks of powers which to me smacks of intellect. It is Harry who uses the word "bit". Although Dumbledore seems to concur withHarry, there is probably no reason for him to play with semantics over Harry's words. We do know that he began to realise that Voldemort had created Horcruxes at about this time. 'Dumbledore paused for a moment, marshalling his thoughts and then said, "Four years ago, I received what I considered cetain proof that Voldemort had split his soul." "Where?" asked Harry. "How?" "You handed it to me, Harry," said Dumbledore. "The diary, Riddle's diary, the one giving instructions on how to reopen the Chamber of Secrets."' (HBP "Horcruxes" p.467 UK edition) He later says to Harry: "I am sure that he was intending to make his final Hoorcrux with your death." (ibid. p.473) So, does this mean that Voldemort had lost a piece of soul to Harry without realising it? That he was still planning to kill Harry and make a Horcrux and would unknowingly be destroying one anyway? I think we can only speculate on this - as we have been doing for days on how tangible is a soul or a mind - but I am minded to stick with my view that the transfer of powers was of the mind and not of the soul. In message 140157, Caius Marcius wrote: > But the sword was used to destroy the diary - so the theory of > Horcrux!GG-Sword that gives us the same problem as Horcrux!Harry, > unless we want to postulate a sort of civil war between the various > fragments of Voldemort's soul. Geoff: If I may disagree, the sword of Gryffindor was not used to destroy the diary.... 'Then, in a rush of wings, Fawkes soared back overhead and something fell into Harry's lap - the diary. For a split second, both Harry and Riddle, wand still raised, stared at it. then, without thinking, without considering, as though he had meant to do it all along, Harry seized the Basilisk fang on the floor next to him and plunged it straight into the heart of the book.' (COS "The Heir of Slytherin" p.237 UK edition) From dossett at lds.net Wed Sep 14 19:32:01 2005 From: dossett at lds.net (rtbthw_mom) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:32:01 -0000 Subject: the Horcruxes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140168 n_longbottom01 writes: Also...is there anything that says that Voldemort can't have made a new horcrux by now? He wants his soul to be split into seven parts because seven is a powerful magic number. If he knows the diary was destroyed in the chamber of secrets, he knows his soul is only split into six parts. Would he create a new horcrux to bring the number back up to seven? rtbthw_mom here: I have wondered this, too, but decided that perhaps there's not enough of his soul left to split anymore (see all the many posts upthread on this subject.) On the other part of n_longbottom01's message, referring to the horcruxes being "hidden in plain sight:" does anyone else think it possible, considering that some of them may be hidden at Hogwarts, that Dobby and Kreacher could come in handy to find any of those? Just a thought (or two!) ~Pat From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Sep 14 19:44:40 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:44:40 -0000 Subject: Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty (Re: Hearing from the Great Middle) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140169 vmonte: > Something that I find interesting in the Snape debates is that > nothing JKR says in her interviews about Snape is ever considered > as canon evidence. Recently JKR responded to an interviewer that > she has never intentionally misled anyone regarding any of her > characters (although she does say she may have needed to change > something minor?but never a major plot point). If we are to take > JKR's comments as for the most part being canon, then you will > notice that she is very consistent in her comments regarding Snape. Jen: Or canon interpreted differently? If JKR wants readers to view Snape as pure evil, she has shot herself in the foot by introducing his opposite into canon. A nice person, a non-greasy, well-mannered boy who is trusted by students and teachers (oh, except for Dumbledore), a *responsible* student who doesn't appear to be mucking around in the dark arts. So when a deeply horrible, not-nice, unliked boy who is 'up to his eyeballs in dark arts' appears AND he's trusted *only* by Dumbledore, well, forgive me if I have to wonder about him. HBP was a study in the evolution of evil in Potterverse. Tom Riddle was a Very Nice Boy. He was polite, studious, well-mannered, affable. Behind his facade, he was working to unleash a monster into the school, murdering his family in cold blood, preparing a diary to suck the life out of a future student, studying how to form Horcruxes using his split soul, and wooing people using his 'considerable charm' to get whatever he wanted. When JKR tells me Snape is a deeply horrible person, abuses his power, is culpable in a way Voldemort is not, isn't 'too nice', well, I get it: He's a Very Mean Person. He was not even capable of *acting* nice like Voldemort, instead, he waved it around like a flag of honor--'look, Deeply Horrible Person over here.' All I'm saying is JKR has done a considerable job of shaping Snape into a person who has very few redeeming qualities in his *personality*. If indeed she is striving to tell us through text and interviews that Snape is evil, well yes, I'm guilty of missing her 'anvil size clues' on this one. zgirnius: > Snape really did come to DD sincerely remorseful for his prior bad > actions back in the days of Voldemort's first war. I expect to > learn more about why he was remorseful, and why Dumbledore > believed him. I do not have a personal favorite theory. But I have > seen more than one theory on the list which would work as far as I > am concerned. (LOLLIPOPS, or his horror that Voldemort orders the > killing of Regulus Black, as two examples). Jen: First zgirnius, I loved your post and had little to debate over so my thoughts are just additions. I really believe we will see an *unmanipulated fact* to prove why Dumbledore trusted Snape. Words can be manipulated, stories of deep remorse spun, tears of sadness cried over Lily, stories of horror told about Regulus---all can be manipulated & fabricated by a superb Occlumens. Even if Snape did feel any of those things, they were not proof he was, or would remain, loyal to Dumbledore. In another post I mentioned how Dumbledore saw proof of who Harry was *inside* throughout the first two years at Hogwarts. Harry saw his family in the Mirror of Erised, he wanted the stone from the mirror but not to use it, he was able to call Fawkes and Gryffindor's sword to him in COS. Those are the kinds of things I believe Dumbledore relied upon to trust Snape, things we will see in the next book, and most likely a combination of inalterable magical forces such as Fawkes being with Snape, Snape's boggart, his patronus, perhaps an animagus form--things JKR believes tell more about a person's true character than words ever could. I'm not saying Dumbledore ran Snape through a set of traps any more than I think he set up those tasks for Harry. But I do think while Snape's reason for changing sides earned him a second chance, they did not gain Dumbledore's complete trust until backed up with irrefutable proof. zgirnius: > I would not be particularly surprised if some variant of ACID POPS > were in play as well, and I *really like* the idea that Snape's > fateful decision to take the Vow may have been due to the malign > influence of the DADA curse. (Yes, the timeline is off, it may not > have been made official by then, but DD was thinking > about bringing in Sluggie at Potions. Maybe the curse reads > minds...) Jen: I love the idea of the DADA curse at work for the UV, but also wonder about the timeline. Like you said, Dumbledore wasn't certain he could convince Slughorn to teach potions at the time of the UV. Snape mentioned to Bella he never got to teach the DADA position, so either he didn't know yet or he lied (big surprise). Still, it's a very useful example of the DADA curse at work if JKR intends to give us more about that. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Sep 14 19:49:12 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:49:12 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End--further evidence for DDsMan!Snape?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140170 > Neri: > Ah yes, the Flint defense. For some reason it's never used against > Snape, only for him. Hickengruendler: Yes, if there are some problems regarding the time in the Potterverse, I mostly assume it's a Flint. I also think that for example the missing 24 hours between the murder of Lily and James and Dumbledore delivering Harry to the Dursleys are simply that, a Flint. But if you reread my previous post, than you'll see that in this case I actually had some canon that make me believe it is a Flint. Bellatrix told Snape, that the kids were joined by the Order "in no time". Even if she were lying to save her face, than why didn't Snape correct her? "No, they did not appear at once. You had a lot of time. I know because I purposefully waited before I gave them the message." Snape was in a snarky mood and gave several snide remarks to Bella's comments. I do not think he wouldn't have used the opportunity to annoy her further. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 14 20:08:01 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:08:01 -0000 Subject: Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty (Re: Hearing from the Great Middle) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140171 > Jen: Or canon interpreted differently? > > If JKR wants readers to view Snape as pure evil, she has shot > herself in the foot by introducing his opposite into canon. A nice > person, a non-greasy, well-mannered boy who is trusted by students > and teachers (oh, except for Dumbledore), a *responsible* student > who doesn't appear to be mucking around in the dark arts. So when a > deeply horrible, not-nice, unliked boy who is 'up to his eyeballs in > dark arts' appears AND he's trusted *only* by Dumbledore, well, > forgive me if I have to wonder about him. Alla: Oh, Jen I wonder about Snape al the time :-). So, here is what I am wondering at the moment. Are you sure that Tom is Snape's canon opposite? Couldn't it be that those two just represent the different faces the Evil can assume? Keep in mind that I am not sure that Snape is Evil of the same caliber as Tom and if I were to bet, I would probably bet on OFH! Snape with some kind of redemptive act appear at the end, but it is a possibility too, no? I would also LOVE for Snape to be Evil at the end, if he is the villain, then IMO JKR did the superb job with him, because I cannot keep my mind away from Snape/Harry interactions. He is the real obstacle on the path of the Hero, something which Harry would have to work really hard to overcome, but of course I am not sure what is going to happen. :-) Jen: > When JKR tells me Snape is a deeply horrible person, abuses his > power, is culpable in a way Voldemort is not, isn't 'too nice', > well, I get it: He's a Very Mean Person. He was not even capable of > *acting* nice like Voldemort, instead, he waved it around like a > flag of honor--'look, Deeply Horrible Person over here.' Alla: LOL! You see I can call such person not just "very mean", but "evil", maybe not the same caliber, but definitely evil, so with me, it is just JKR showed us one more act of such evil person. Jen: > All I'm saying is JKR has done a considerable job of shaping Snape > into a person who has very few redeeming qualities in his > *personality*. If indeed she is striving to tell us through text and > interviews that Snape is evil, well yes, I'm guilty of missing > her 'anvil size clues' on this one. Alla: I don't think it is necessarily true, but I think it is a possibility, since again I keep thinking more and more that quite often simple answer is the right one. :-) But again if I were to bet, I would bet that Snape may do something to help Harry at the end. Not because he is good, but because Harry would show him mercy prior to that. Although with JKR betting is truly a dangerous thing. :-) JMO, Alla From msbeadsley at yahoo.com Wed Sep 14 20:17:33 2005 From: msbeadsley at yahoo.com (msbeadsley) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:17:33 -0000 Subject: Keep Harry Horcrux Free Challenge! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140172 Okay, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here just for the fun of it. Saraquel: > The Horcrux in the diary fed off Ginny in order to bring itself to > life. If Harry was a Horcrux, intentional or not, that piece of soul > would have been really trying to suck the life out of him and bring > bring itself to life. Plus, Harry was only a baby when this event > occurred so absolutely helpless. This brings up a lot of other questions, actually. Did the diary start draining her or possessing her first? Did it take time to get to the point where TMR felt enough of an advantage to just suck Ginny dry and come back as himself? (Tangent: did Ginny's retrieval of the diary from the boys' dorm constitute her saving Harry's life, making them even? Or did she do it just so no one would discover she had been doing the Heir of Slytherin's bidding? When Ginny tried to flush the diary, did her will create a backlash so that she regained some of her ?lan vital? Did the shade have to start all over again when reunited with Ginny?) I credit Voldemort's inability to drain, or even influence Baby Harry, to remnants of Lily's protective magic. > 2)Why does Voldmort need to use legilimency? > If Harry was a Horcrux, embodied Voldemort wouldn't need to access > Harry's mind through legilimancy, the Horcrux would presumably do it > for him and Voldemort would know simply by being aware of that part > of his soul. If Voldemort suspected that Harry was a Horcurx, which > surely he must have thought about, he would have made efforts to re- > connect with that part of himself and not IMO be so dismissive of > Harry and so quick to AK him at the Ministry, knowing that he was > AKing his own soul. Snape tells Harry that Legilimency often requires eye contact and that Hogwarts is surrounded with protections that should prevent it from happening anyway. "The usual rules do not seem to apply to you, Potter. The curse that failed to kill you seems to have forged some kind of connection between you and the Dark Lord." OoP Ch. 24 US, Occlumency. So it seems clearly stated that something *besides* (or instead of) Legilimency is at work here. And there is nothing I can recall in canon which suggests that the maker of a horcrux can connect with it/its contents. (If the horcrux maker was able to connect with the split-off piece of soul that way, he'd almost have an intact soul, IMO. I think the point is that you lose contact with that part of your soul; otherwise, TMR wouldn't have gotten Voldier and Voldier with each horcrux; would he?) Voldemort's obliviousness about the destruction of the diary would seem to argue against it as well. > 3)Dumbledore in CoS > Uk Ed COS p245 > "Unless I'm much mistaken, he transferred some of his own powers to > you the night he gave you that scar. Not something he intended to > do, I'm sure " > "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" Harry said thunderstruck. > "It certainly seems so." > DD seems to think that what was transferred to Harry was Voldemort's > *powers* not a bit of his soul. Dumbledore's take on events is that Voldemort intended to make Harry's death the catalyst for his last horcrux, not that he intended to make a horcrux out of Harry. Dumbledore also seems to think making a horcrux out of an ambulatory entity is even riskier than making one out of a diary or a ring. Nor does he know of anyone who ever made more than one horcrux. So, if that repeated action made of Voldemort's soul something so fragile and tattered that the sort of violent (house-flattening) magic GH involved could make an accidental horcrux in, on, or of Harry (and this is the theory I find most plausible), Dumbledore might not guess it. Dumbledore would not have told Harry about it at that post-Chamber moment in any case, while Harry was being troubled about the similarities between himself and Voldemort. (Although I am not opining that Dumbledore knew Harry was a horcrux.) Harry's question, "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" may actually be foreshadowing. Harry says, "a bit of himself," rather than echoing Dumbledore's phrase, "some of his own powers." > 4)Wizards and Muggles > This one is my favourite and I think the most difficult to counter. > It therefore seems to me that magical powers are a separate entity > to the soul. Hence making Harry a horcrux would not necessarily > endow him with Voldemort's powers. So if you then argue that some Okay. One word: Parseltongue. Although, IIRC, we didn't see Diary!Tom cast any spells, he definitely called the basilisk. The ability to talk to snakes is IMO the most obvious thing (besides the scar) that Harry got from Voldemort. So the fragment of Voldie's soul in the diary had it, and so does Harry. How's that for a counter? Unless you're going to postulate that all of the horcruxes also contain some of Voldie's powers...which argues against the soul and magical ability being all that separate. > UK Ed p473 > "I am sure that he was intending to make his final Horcrux with your > death. As we know, he failed." I really think DD would have thought > about the accidental scenario. Why would Dumbledore have thought about the accidental scenario? Even if he had, what would he have done with the knowledge of that possiblity? I'm guessing he'd have had a massive case of denial. Hey, if he loved Harry too much to tell him about the prophecy for all those years, how strenuously do you think he'd have resisted (something no more than a possibility, anyway) that Harry actually harbored a bit of Voldemort's *soul* and was therefore probably utterly doomed? > Plus 3 courtesy of Jen in post 140041 > 6) Even though I personally love the idea Harry is gifted in > destroying the Horcruxes in a way DD is not, the diary did not have > any curses upon it the way the ring did. So we can't know that for > sure yet. The diary was designed to be seductive, wasn't it? It was meant to turn someone into a puppet to do the will of Voldemort, or at least the will of that bit of Voldemort. (The diary definitely had a will of its own; I wonder if that's a thought worth pursuing...again, no doubt.) > 7) Harry did not feel any affinity at all for the locket at 12 GP, > if indeed it is a Horcrux, nor could he open it, same as the others > present. Are we assuming that Harry has an affinity for the horcruxes, based on his reaction to the diary? The same magic that sucked in Ginny could account for everything Harry felt about the pre-Chamber diary. > 8) In the cave, DD said: "I think we must resign ourselves to the > fact that they [Inferi] will, at some point, realize we're not Lord > Voldemort." (chap. 26, p. 564) And they do!! I know this is pitiful > little evidence, but I think if Harry is somehow recognized to have > part of Voldemort in him, the Inferi would not bother him. There really isn't any clear indication that Voldemort himself could pass by the Inferi unmolested without using some sort of "Hi Honeys, I'm home!" magic. Besides, it wasn't until Harry dipped out a cup of the lake water, something I doubt Voldemort would have needed to do, that the Inferi reacted. (As a matter of fact, the lack of Inferi reaction prior to the breaching of the lake surface (since Dumbledore wasn't, IMO, expecting that necessity when he made the quoted comment) could be used as an argument in *favor* of Harry being a horcrux (darn you, JKR!) and the Inferi letting him pass because of it. Also, I can't help but wonder if something about Lily's sacrificial magic isn't still at work, acting as a barrier within Harry between the parts of him that are just him and the parts that are Voldemort; Harry's 17th birthday may get VERY interesting. (Here I have to stop and practice my breathing and get that fight or flight response under control.) Saraquel: > I'd also like to thank Brothergib for having mercy on me and > suggesting a wonderfully fanciful theory to get Voldemort's powers > into Harry. I loved it, but think, as you said in your second post, > the simplest explanations are always the best! > >Brothergib wrote: > >What if Voldemort had succeeded in making Harry a Horcrux that > >night at GH. But the love flowing through him from his mother's > >sacrifice had violently expelled the Horcrux. This left the > >lightning shaped scar (as with the ring) and destroyed GH as well > >as Voldemort. Harry would possess many of Voldemort's powers having > >once been touched by Voldemort's soul, but would not technically be > >a Horcrux any longer!! What in canon suggests that Voldemort meant to make Harry a horcrux? If he had, would he have emerged re-embodied from the cauldron intending Harry's death? IMO, it seems unneccessarily convoluted to have Harry be a horcrux for a moment and then not one anymore. But it was fascinating to consider. Are you saying that Lily's love flowing through Harry destroyed GH? Saraquel: > It had occurred to me that the scar might represent something coming > *out* of Harry, rather than something going in. I was toying with > an idea that Voldemort was planning to make Harry into a Horcrux at > GH, the ultimate humiliation for Harry ? to in effect be ruled by > Voldemort's soul from babyhood. But then that wouldn't square with > him wanting to use Harry's murder to do it ? I ended up with a > Horcrux!Inferi Ewww! Sandy aka msbeadsley, particularly thanking Saraquel and Valky for inspiring many mental meanderings From vmonte at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 00:39:08 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 00:39:08 -0000 Subject: Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty (Re: Hearing from the Great Middle) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140173 Jen: Or canon interpreted differently? If JKR wants readers to view Snape as pure evil, she has shot herself in the foot by introducing his opposite into canon. A nice person, a non-greasy, well-mannered boy who is trusted by students and teachers (oh, except for Dumbledore), a *responsible* student who doesn't appear to be mucking around in the dark arts. So when a deeply horrible, not-nice, unliked boy who is 'up to his eyeballs in dark arts' appears AND he's trusted *only* by Dumbledore, well, forgive me if I have to wonder about him. HBP was a study in the evolution of evil in Potterverse. Tom Riddle was a Very Nice Boy. He was polite, studious, well-mannered, affable. Behind his facade, he was working to unleash a monster into the school, murdering his family in cold blood, preparing a diary to suck the life out of a future student, studying how to form Horcruxes using his split soul, and wooing people using his 'considerable charm' to get whatever he wanted. When JKR tells me Snape is a deeply horrible person, abuses his power, is culpable in a way Voldemort is not, isn't 'too nice', well, I get it: He's a Very Mean Person. He was not even capable of *acting* nice like Voldemort, instead, he waved it around like a flag of honor--'look, Deeply Horrible Person over here.' All I'm saying is JKR has done a considerable job of shaping Snape into a person who has very few redeeming qualities in his *personality*. If indeed she is striving to tell us through text and interviews that Snape is evil, well yes, I'm guilty of missing her 'anvil size clues' on this one. ...I love the idea of the DADA curse at work for the UV, but also wonder about the timeline. Like you said, Dumbledore wasn't certain he could convince Slughorn to teach potions at the time of the UV. Snape mentioned to Bella he never got to teach the DADA position, so either he didn't know yet or he lied (big surprise). Still, it's a very useful example of the DADA curse at work if JKR intends to give us more about that. vmonte: Well there are all sorts of evil people in the world with different personalities and looks. Evil people use whatever gifts they have to get what they want. They will use their looks, intellect, and connections, whatever. To tell you the truth I think that Snape would make a more interesting villain that Voldemort. And yes, I also think that he is OFH, since he seems to have contempt for just about everybody. It's curious how people are always ready to make excuses for Snape. Now it's the DADA position that made him go bad? He had no choice? I guess in the end it all comes down to how JKR personally feels with regards to people like Snape. I despise this kind of person myself. In fact I dislike this kind of person so much that I would be tempted to redeem Tom, the person that never had anyone who loved him, before I would redeem Snape, who did. But I would still kill them both off. :) Vivian From darqali at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 00:00:19 2005 From: darqali at yahoo.com (darqali) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 00:00:19 -0000 Subject: Horcrux Harry ??? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140174 First: Try to read here every day but volume/time makes it impossible to read every post. Please forgive if this has been answered: How is "horcrux" pronounced? Is there agreement? And what is the proper plural? Horcruxes? Horcruxi? Next: And I know the subject has been beaten to death, but: LV could not have initially intended to make a Horcrux of Harry, because it is pretty clear that LV intended to *kill* Harry when he went to G's Hollow. He attempted yet again to kill Harry when he was attatched to Quirrel in PS/SS; and yet again as Diary!Tom; and yet again in the graveyard after he made a new body, using Harry's blood as part of the ritual magic; and yet again at the MoM at the climax of O of the Pheonix; and tried to get Dumbledore to do so after he himself failed then too. How, then, could Harry, or Harry's scar, be an intentional Horcrux made by LV? It makes no sense. Dumbledore said it seemed clear to him that LV intended to make his final Horcurx with the soul-tearing event of Harry's death, Harry being a *special* person to be dispatched; and LV wanting *significant* deaths to make his Horcrux from .... It seems, well, silly, to assume this is incorrect and that LV wanted to make Harry a living Horcrux, rather than to kill him. As for an *accidental* creation of a Horcrux attatched to Harry {eg, his scar} because of a backfire of magic, that remains *possible* but if that is the case, LV must remain blissfully unaware or why would he keep attempting to assisinate Harry {thereby killing one of his own soul-bits}? Further: Dumbledore assumed LV intended to make his sixth and final Horcrux with Harry's planned death at G's Hollow. If we assume this is a correct assumption, there must have been an object intended to become that Horcurx, to hold the soul fragment, once LV's soul had been torn by Harry's murder. And LV had a wand at G's Hollow, too, and it is the *same wand* with which he murders the old muggle in his parents house, and Bertha Jorkins earlier, and so on ..... *after* he has returned from his Vapormort stage {yes, even when he had his 'baby body' Scabbers/P Pettigrew helped him attain}. *The same wand.* Hence, *someone had to have been at G's Hollow* to retrieve that wand .... what about the intended Horcrux object? One guesses that *someone* might have been Peter Pettigrew, as he was the Secret Keeper and may have been actually showing LV the way to the Potters' hidden house. Or it may have been Snape, or another Death Eater {or many more than one }. Has there been and concensus on who? And if not Peter Pettigrew, how did LV recover his wand after he was no longer Vapormort? And did the person who retrieved the wand from the ruins of the Potters house *also* retrieve the intended Horcrux object, whatever it was? Darqali From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 00:58:42 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 00:58:42 -0000 Subject: Snape informed Order about Prophecy? WAS: Re: Hearing from the Great Middle & other assorted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140175 > >>houyhnhnm: > > The Order has people standing guard over the prophecy in August. > > Where else could the information have come from? > >>PJ: > But that's exactly why the information *couldn't* have come from > Snape. If it's that obvious to you, then it would surely be just > as obvious to LV and Snape would be dead at the start of book 6. > Betsy Hp: I doubt it was obvious to the Death Eaters (and therefore Voldemort) that the Order was guarding the Prophecy. They were using Moody's invisibility cloak, after all. I imagine there was no knowledge of Order guards until Snake!Voldemort used his super snaky powers to spot the sleeping Arthur. As to why the Order was guarding the door at that time, well, Lucius was responsible for the reconnaissance, and he was already in Voldemort's bad graces (the diary incident), so I imagine it'd be rather easy to nudge the blame in Lucius's direction. Betsy Hp From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Sep 15 01:04:47 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 01:04:47 -0000 Subject: Snape informed Order about Prophecy? WAS: Re: Hearing from the Great Middle & ot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140176 PJ answers: > But that's exactly why the information *couldn't* > have come from Snape. If it's that obvious to you, > then it would surely be just as obvious to LV and > Snape would be dead at the start of book 6 . Since > Snape is still in his good graces after the MoM fiasco, > LV must have hard proof that Snape wasn't the informant. houyhnhnm: But is there evidence Voldemort knew the Order knew--prior to the imperiousing of Sturgis Podmore? Because after that, Voldemort would have known his hand was tipped. It wouldn't have needed an informer in his inner circle to explain why Dumbledore was aware of his designs on the prophecy. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 01:20:04 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 01:20:04 -0000 Subject: Dealing with Dementors: Harry v Snape, Love v Happy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140177 Carol earlier: > > It's possible that Hermione will face a Dementor in Book 7, fail > > utterly to cast a Patronus because she can't concentrate on a happy memory in the circumstances, and remember Snape's method. > > Valky: > But did Snape ever actually elaborate on or teach this alternative > method? I don't remember that he did at all. > > Sorry to put sticks in your mud pie Carol ;D but I don't believe that > Snapes method of dealing with Dementors is what you'd call *light* > magic. A better method than a Patronus would be necessary to > explainhow the MOM keep control over the Dementors in Azkaban, and for > Death Eaters and Voldemort to have so much more power over them than > the average wizard. It's also kind of surprising that Harry would only > be taught a secondary method which was difficult to use while another > one exists. > > Basically it all adds up to not boding for this alternative of Snapes to be good magic. The MOM is given to using a bit of dirty work when they deem it justified, and Voldemort there is no question, would use whatever alternative was more powerful OTOH Dumbledore and Lupin are firmly principled characters and it is they specifically that appear to prefer the Patronus. It almost seems given that this alternative is Dark Magic. > > Valky Carol responds: Dark magic to defend against Dark magic? That doesn't make sense to me. Also, if snape were teaching DADA in some suspicious way, surely either Harry or Hermione would have noticed it. Harry is only expecting a low grade on the essay because he disagrees with Snape, not because he sees anything "dark" about Snape's method. You've responded to one peripheral paragraph, not to the argument as a whole, which was, in short: A corporeal Patronus is difficult to cast and is regarded by both Lupin and Madam Bones as advanced magic. (Harry had an advantage in learning to cast it because his boggart happened to be a Dementor.) The difficulty of casting a corporeal Patronus is immensely increased in the presence of a real Dementor, who is attempting to suck out the victim's happy memories just at the point when the victim needs to focus on a happy memory in order to cast the spell. Given these difficulties, an alternative method of repelling Dementors would be extremely useful and desirable. You're right that we didn't hear Snape elaborate on his method, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't work, only that JKR doesn't want us to know what it is. I see no evidence to conclude that his method is Dark Magic. If it were, it would work against a Patronus, not against a Dementor, which is (along with a Horcrux) pretty much the essence of Dark Magic. Nor is there any necessary connection between Snape's method and the MoM's spells for controlling Dementors, which there's no reason for Snape to know. What we do know is that he's quite creative in making up his own spells, and this may be one instance in which he willingly shares them without taking credit for his invention. Carol From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 01:39:02 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 01:39:02 -0000 Subject: Keep Harry Horcrux Free Challenge! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140178 Saraquel: Bowing to her opponents and bringing her wand to the en garde position. Trusting in her worthy second, Geoff, to pick up the pieces and fight on if she is mutilated in the duel! Sarquel proposes: > 1 )Evidence from Chamber of Secrets. >If Harry was a Horcrux, intentional or not, that piece of soul > would have been really trying to suck the life out of him and bring > itself to life, particularly as Voldemort lost his body in the > attempt. >Valky counters: >Two words.. Dudley Demented. >Ginny who has experience in being possessed asks Harry, are there ties >when you've blacked out, and can't remember what you've done. hMmm >Can't rememeber hey? Well Harry certainly cannot *remember anything* >in Dudleys life that would classify as a traumatic experience, and >what if thats the point.. that Harry can't *remember* it..? >Ok, grabbing at thin air, I know. Saraquel replies: Yes indeed Valky, I haven't even cast a spell yet :-) >Sandy Counters: >I credit Voldemort's inability to drain, or even influence Baby Harry, to remnants of Lily's protective magic. Saraquel replies: Ah, the expected riposte, which I admit has singed my hair, but I'm still on my feet. This is the strongest counter argument to this proposition, in my opinion. But just because Lily's blood protects Harry, it does not necessarily mean that he is a Horcrux. Harry needs protecting from a great many things. That DEs were active after Voldemort's demise is clear from the attack on the Longbottoms, and of course Harry definitely needs protection after Voldemort has returned. Saraquel proposes: 2)Why does Voldemort need to use legilimency? If Harry was a Horcrux, embodied Voldemort wouldn't need to access Harry's mind through legilimancy, the Horcrux would presumably do it for him and Voldemort would know simply by being aware of that part of his soul. Valky counters: Legilimency would still be necessary even if Harry was a Horcrux I think. We are explicitly given by Dumbledore that Voldemort is probably not aware of his Horcruxes. This of course acts as a balancer too, we, therefore, certainly cannot say, either, that the connection between Harry and Voldemort is because of Harry having accidentally become a Horcrux. In any fashion, the connection, and the scar are additional to, or other than a Horcrux, IMO. Sandy counters: Snape tells Harry that Legilimency often requires eye contact and that Hogwarts is surrounded with protections that should prevent it from happening anyway. "The usual rules do not seem to apply to you, Potter. The curse that failed to kill you seems to have forged some kind of connection between you and the Dark Lord." OoP Ch. 24 US, Occlumency. So it seems clearly stated that something *besides* (or instead of) Legilimency is at work here. Saraquel: I bow to the logic or your arguments, and take the hit. A mere trifle I assure you, a flesh wound only, for you have stated the counter argument for me Valky, thankyou ? the connection, by your disconnection arguments, cannot be through a horcrux, which does imply something other than that being involved. And my argument is, if that is the case, why does Harry need to be a horcrux as well? Valky countered: OTOH, one can remove the scar from the question, and yet postulate that Harry is possibly a Horcrux. We have seen the scar shape on a Horcrux before, Saraquel replies: Have we? I think the Ring was cracked, it gave no indication in my memory of being necessarily in the shape of a lightening bolt. Valky countered: and Moody evidently believed that there were possible indications of Harry being susceptible to possession by Voldemort. Saraquel replies: Who is not vulnerable to such a thing? Maybe only DD was immune. If Voldemort wants to possess you, Voldemort will, IMO. Valky countered: There is also the Silver instruments, which Dumbledore used to conclude that two Snakes were in essence divided. Saraquel replies: I think you are assuming the two snakes represent Harry and Voldemort. My reading is that they are the first clue that DD has that Voldemort has made a horcrux of Nagini. In essence divided, but actually from the same source. Valky countered: And there is the chance that a Horcrux was made at Godrics Hollow, so hence the very real chance that it ended up in the wrong body/container. Saraquel replies: JKR has specified that the AK curse was used, and we know that another spell is needed to create a Horcrux. First the murder, then the Horcrux. Voldemort was in no state to cast the Horcrux spell. Saraquel proposed, ably improved on by Geoff: 3)Dumbledore in CoS Uk Ed COS p245 "Unless I'm much mistaken, he transferred some of his own powers to you the night he gave you that scar. Sandy countered: So, if that repeated action made of Voldemort's soul something so fragile and tattered that the sort of violent (house-flattening) magic GH involved could make an accidental horcrux in, on, or of Harry (and this is the theory I find most plausible), Dumbledore might not guess it. Saraquel responds: Now Sandy, such a slurr on Dumblemdore's powers of reasoning, deduction and anticipation I cannot leave without a determined, and well aimed jelly legs counter hex :-) Dumbledore, IMO would have left no stone unturned, no possibility uninvestigated, especially as he knows that he is investigating a scenario which has never before been seen. How long did it take for accidental-horcrux to arise in this group, where I think all of us would admit, our intellects are peanut sized in comparison to DDs? I suspect, less than one month. Dumbledore had years to work on this. In my mind, he has either been through the scenario and discounted it, or he has some very special reason for not telling Harry. IMO, he would have told Harry in the Horcrux chapter at the very latest. I cannot see any reason for him not to tell Harry by this time, even if he only suspected it as a possibility. He has never implied even the possibility of an accidental horcrux, and that is because I think DD knows much better than we do where the *powers* of a wizard reside, and what it is of Voldeort's that is inside Harry. Saraquel proposed: > 4)Wizards and Muggles > This one is my favourite and I think the most difficult to counter. > Presuming that both wizards and muggles both have souls - there is > no cannon evidence to support this, but I feel reasonably confident > that it is so. The difference between muggles and witches (let's > have gender balances here) is their magical ability ? their powers. > It therefore seems to me that magical powers are a separate entity > to the soul. Valky countered by dodging the hex and pointing out that Horcruxes are in the mix and we should consider them. Yes, we should consider them, but I do not yet believe it is *necessary* for Harry to be a Horcrux for the plot to resolve. It somewhat depends on what JKR has in mind for the final showdown. Sandy countered: The ability to talk to snakes is IMO the most obvious thing (besides the scar) that Harry got from Voldemort. So the fragment of Voldie's soul in the diary had it, and so does Harry. How's that for a counter? Saraquel replies: A touch of my wand to my hat to you Sandy, BUT, Riddle had created himself a body *before* he invited the Basilisk to the party and IMO a wizards powers probably reside in their bodies. I have already faced the eeew factor necessary to get powers into Harry by suggesting that a part of Voldemort's hand or brain went in to him when Voldemort exploded at GH. (Although I'm now, not very quietly, retching all over my keyboard!) Saraquel proposed: > UK Ed HBP p473, DD said > "I am sure that he was intending to make his final Horcrux with > your death. As we know, he failed." Sandy countered: Hey, if he loved Harry too much to tell him about the prophecy for all those years, how strenuously do you think he'd have resisted (something no more than a possibility, anyway) that Harry actually harbored a bit of Voldemort's *soul* and was therefore probably utterly doomed? Saraquel replies: Oh Sandy, thank goodness you're only *playing* devil's advocate ? such slurs on DDs character are so painful to me :-) No, I think DD would have bitten the bullet, he knew after OotP how foolish it was for him to delay telling Harry. Are you suggesting that he did not learn by this mistake? DD may make mistakes, but I would bet my life, he always learns from them. Valky struggled to counter. However, the curse that hit her wasn't an AK, and she managed to post something shaky about Harry being like Nagini. Saraquel helps her to her feet, and honours her as a powerful and skilled opponent :-) I feel that I must leave Jen to answer for her own proposals, powerful as they are. Well all in all, I think we have kept up a good solid defence of the Harry is *not* a horcrux theory. And as JKR in no way indicates explicitly that we should think of Harry as a horcrux, I think it is in the hands of the pro horcrux theorists to make the case why it is *necessary* for him to be one. Sandy wrote: > Sandy aka msbeadsley, particularly thanking Saraquel and Valky for > inspiring many mental meanderings Saraquel: Thank you Sandy, I'm glad you have enjoyed my posts (I agree wholeheartedly with you about Valky's posts) It's the mental meanderings which I enjoy too, the process of speculation for speculation's sake. I really don't care at the end of the day about whether my speculation will be proved right or wrong. JKR can make Harry a horcrux, Damn Snape to eternal perdition, Ship Harry with Hermione and make DD come back from the dead if she wants to, and I will still enjoy the ride, because I trust her to convince me ? and she has never failed to do that yet over the things that really matter. Saraquel From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Sep 15 01:55:38 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 01:55:38 -0000 Subject: the Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140179 > n_longbottom01: > > Also...is there anything that says that Voldemort can't have made a > new horcrux by now? He wants his soul to be split into seven parts > because seven is a powerful magic number. If he knows the diary was > destroyed in the chamber of secrets, he knows his soul is only split > into six parts. Would he create a new horcrux to bring the number > back up to seven? > > rtbthw_mom: > > I have wondered this, too, but decided that perhaps there's not > enough of his soul left to split anymore > ~Pat Valky: IMO this is a plausible explanation as to why Voldemort ordered his DE's *not* to kill Harry. As Pat says here, Voldie surely knows there are limits to how many times he can separate pieces of his soul into containers, but he does know he's one Horcrux down now. So he might decide that if he wants the Diary replaced taking his number back to seven as far as he knows, then the death of the person who destroyed it is the worthy way to do the job right. There ae definitely plentiful reasns for Voldemort to consider Harry's death to be a significant event for his hand only, this is definitely one of them I think. It gives Snape a nice neat reason for protecting Harry at the end of HBP no matter which side of the fence one falls on. rtbthw_mom (Pat): > On the other part of n_longbottom01's message, referring to the > horcruxes being "hidden in plain sight:" does anyone else think it > possible, considering that some of them may be hidden at Hogwarts, > that Dobby and Kreacher could come in handy to find any of those? Valky: I am sure that more than one of them is. The real exception here is, I think, the Hufflepuff cup. IMO it's likely that we haven't actully *seen* this in plain sight, but its hiding place, OTOH, I would bet we have seen. This is my own list so far of Horcrux things: The Diary - Harry destroyed. Alludes to the myth of the Basilsk and the Weasel. The Locket - Has gone through the veil with Sirius. I believe the Locket story alludes to myth of Hecate Underworld Goddess with heads of Dog(Sirius)/Lion(Regulus)/Snake(Voldemort) or Bear(Regulus)/Horse(Snape)/Dog(Sirius). Black Dogs were sacrificed to Hecate. The Ring - Dumbledore, Snape and possibly Harry in the end destroyed. Dumbledores part alludes to the Myth of the Phoenix and the Snake - Eternal enemies. Harry's part alludes to the myth of Hercules defeating the Nemean lion. Hercules uses his bare hands to overcome the lion in a cave with the entrance blocked. Afterwards Hercules is ever wearing the Lions impenetrable skin as a coat and its head as a Helmet. The Ravenclaw Object: A wand, possibly hidden in the secret magic that Harry sensed in Ollivanders. Possibly alludes to the myth of Hydra (nine snake heads) and Hercules. Hydra was banished with a *Raven* in the sky. When Hercules finds Hydra he is attacked by a Crab (Crabbe?) His companion (nephew) comes up with a way to stop the Hydra's heads growing back (Ron and Hermione?) I am still trying to locate myths that construe into the following, I am open to ideas. The Hufflepuff Chalice - I was thinking Wolves (Huff(and I)lepuff) and Tricksters (Badger) but I am still open to another direction.. Nagini - I am with Dumbleore on this one. Voldemort - Stands to reason. ?Harry? - Could allude to the Ouroborous myth, Voldemort accidentally makes 8 Horcruxes not 7, creating is his own undoing. Valky From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 02:02:54 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:02:54 -0000 Subject: That darn Prophecy again.. Re: Thin air/Choices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140180 Valky wrote: > I am becoming rather attached to the idea that the scar shape > is the sign of Voldemorts curse attacking. It confuses a little, > because it seems to say that Harry is/was a Horcrux when he got the > scar, but I actually think that is not quite right, and that rather > the best way to look at it as to imagine Harry as a mirror. > > This kind of brings us back to the ritual or plan Voldemort had for > killing Harry. Dumbledore sees that Voldemort chose Harry based on > their likenesses, and if he is not wide of the mark, then perhaps it > was their likenesses that Voldemort deduced held the key to > vanquishing him. So he went to GH, with a deliberate plan to undermine Harry's likeness to him and use it to destroy him. > Harry's eyes would then essentially reflect the magic straight back at Voldemort, and Voldemorts curse would activate sending death straight back at Harry. But the curse cannot kill Harry, because Harry has done nothing wrong, nothing at all. And the curse will only destroy the one who tried to kill Voldemort, so it bursts back out of Harry and straight at Voldemort. Voldemort might be the one the curse is meant to protect, but he is also the guilty party who tried to kill the protected, the curse is too crude really to see the difference and it kills Voldemort, in the meantime blowing up the house in it's confusion. Carol responds: I think you're overcomplicating matters. We already have Lily's self-sacrifice as the reason that the AK rebounded. (I'd like for her to have performed a protective charm in addition to the sacrifice, but there's no need for Voldemort to have performed a curse. He just wants to AK the prophecy boy.) The one point where I agree with you is that the scar was caused by the curse (the AK, not some Horcrux-relatated curse) bursting *outward*. The resulting opening might have allowed some of LV's powers (Parseltongue and possibly some degree of Legilimency or possession) to enter Harry, but LV kept what remained of his soul. It's his body that exploded. I'm not an advocate of "face value" reading (we know the narrator can be unreliable and we shouldn't trust a character's interpretation fully, either), but I do think Voldemort would have said something to Harry in the graveyard (before the DEs arrived) if he'd placed some other curse on him. To simplify: Voldemort kills Lily, activating the ancient love magic. Voldemort AKs Harry. The AK bursts from Harry's head, leaving a jagged scar and rebounding on Voldemort. Voldemort's body and soul are ripped apart--whatever magic he had placed on his *body* didn't protect it from a rebounded AK, but his Horcruxes (and possibly Lily's magic) did prevent the AK from acting normally. Instead of falling dead without a mark on him, LV explodes, along with the house. His soul remnant, protected by the Horcruxes, becomes "less than a spirit," requiring another body to house it. Not having a body or the ability to wield a wand, LV can't create another Horcrux. The power or powers Harry acquires from him relate to his magical abilities, not to his immortal soul, which is the essence that gives a person life but passes beyond the veil when that person dies (unless that person chooses to become a ghost). It is not intended to be bound to the earth, as Voldemort's is, or to be fragmented. Entirely canonical, right? Or am I overlooking something? Carol, who still hopes that the scar is shaped like a rune but that it reflects Lily's protection, not anything related to a Horcrux From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 02:11:43 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:11:43 -0000 Subject: Horcrux Harry ??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140181 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "darqali" wrote: > First: > > Try to read here every day but volume/time makes it impossible to > read every post. Please forgive if this has been answered: > > How is "horcrux" pronounced? Is there agreement? And what is the > proper plural? Horcruxes? Horcruxi? We've discussed it for a while in OT, it starts at message #28500 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/28500 The plural is Horcruxes, that's how Dumbledore says it, and it's canon, the pronunciation is trickier, but I think most agree that it's pronounced as HORace... I don't agree, but... Juli From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 02:25:36 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:25:36 -0000 Subject: Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty (Re: Hearing from the Great Middle) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140182 > >>vmonte: > > Something that I find interesting in the Snape debates is that > > nothing JKR says in her interviews about Snape is ever considered > > as canon evidence. > > Betsy Hp: For me, it's because interviews are *not* canon. If it's not in the books, then it's commentary. And *especially* when we're talking about something the mystery element in the story hinges on, I really start taking JKR's words with a whopping grain of salt. So yeah, I tend to ignore the interviews when it comes to Snape. Because at this point, JKR isn't trying to clarify anything. > >>Jen: > Or canon interpreted differently? > If JKR wants readers to view Snape as pure evil, she has shot > herself in the foot by introducing his opposite into canon. > Betsy Hp: I totally agree with everything you've said here, Jen. JKR has shown us true evil, true sadism far too much for me to lump Snape under those catagories, myself. > >>Jen: > When JKR tells me Snape is a deeply horrible person, abuses his > power, is culpable in a way Voldemort is not, isn't 'too nice', > well, I get it: He's a Very Mean Person. > Betsy Hp: This is where I'm aware I'm kind of on my own, but honestly? I've yet to Snape behaving as a "deeply horrible person". He's certainly never struck me as sadistic (where do folks get that idea? I seriously wonder), and I've not really seen him abuse his powers. Oh sure, he plays the big bad to Harry, but frankly, Harry usually deserves it. And yeah, I think Snape *did* seriously worry that Harry may become evil himself. The temptations were certainly there, and Snape would be painfully aware of how far a silly little boy could go if he started to believe his press. > >>Jen: > > I really believe we will see an *unmanipulated fact* to prove why > Dumbledore trusted Snape. > > But I do think while Snape's reason for changing sides earned him > a second chance, they did not gain Dumbledore's complete trust > until backed up with irrefutable proof. Betsy Hp: I think there will *need* to be irrefutable proof for fandom to be satisfied. And I think JKR, clever as she's been in creating ambiguous!Snape, realizes it. Harry will need it as well. And that proof will be the final(?) step in his transition from boy to man. > >>zgirnius: > > > > (Yes, the timeline is off, it may not have been made official by > > then, but DD was thinking about bringing in Sluggie at Potions. > > Maybe the curse reads minds...) > >>Jen: > I love the idea of the DADA curse at work for the UV, but also > wonder about the timeline. Like you said, Dumbledore wasn't > certain he could convince Slughorn to teach potions at the time of > the UV. > Betsy Hp: Wasn't he? I thought the only thing that surprised Dumbledore about his vist to Slughorn's was the *speed* of Slughorn's acquiescence. I base that on this exchange between Molly and Dumbledore when he and Harry arrive at the Burrow. "Gracious, Albus, you gave me a fright, you said not to expect you before morning!" "We were lucky," said Dumbledore, ushering Harry over the threshold. "Slughorn proved more persuadable than I had expected." (HBP scholastic p.81) I'm under the impression that Dumbledore was going to stay with Slughorn until he got the "yes" he was after. So I do think Snape knew, at the time of Spinner's End, that he was going to be DADA professor. Betsy Hp From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 02:42:17 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:42:17 -0000 Subject: Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty (Re: Hearing from the Great Middle) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140183 vmonte wrote: > It's curious how people are always ready to make excuses for Snape. > Now it's the DADA position that made him go bad? He had no choice? zgirnius: I do not feel that the curse *made* him go bad, no. My comment about liking the DADA theory for why Snape took the UV reflects my admiration of Carol's long and interesting post 137,961. She argues that the curse might work by exploiting the flaws of each of the teachers in such a way that they each contribute to their own downfall. I find the fact that Snape took the Unbreakable Vow is hard to explain, because, by and large, I think he's a pretty smart customer. It is not the brightest move (IMO) for any brand of Snape (ESE!, ESG!, OFH!, TopWizard!, etc.), since it has potentially lethal consequences to him and limits his available courses of action. It would seem to me that any advantage he might gain from taking the UV can in the long run accrue to him if he refuses to take it, but then performs the desired actions anyway at the most opportune moment. In my reading he does not know what he is swearing to (he's stringing Cissy and Bella along in order to gain this information) and he believes he can avoid the negative consequences. So his action is not immoral (except insofar as it is part of deceiving Bella and Cissy, but I'm OK with that in a spy...) in that he has no intention of killing or helping to kill anyone, and thus does not need to be excused. It is just a *mistake*. As I see it, the DADA curse may also explain why Dumbledore chooses the night when Draco brings in the DEs, or all night, to go Horcrux- hunting. If we buy this supposition, it puts Snape in the position where he can no longer use his cleverness to wiggle out of the situation. He must kill Dumbledore, or die. He never expected to find himself in this position, and I like the idea that he would never have found himself in that position if it were not for the malign influence of the DADA curse. But once Snape *is* in that situation, I certainly agree that he is responsible for the choice that he makes. He kills Dumbledore. The curse does not force him to do it. Actually, I'm really glad you wrote this and got me to put out my DADA ideas down on paper (OK, on screen...) because it has made me have another idea I like about Book 7. I believe that Snape is not at all happy with how things have turned out. I think he feels he set himself up, and I think he feels that his action in killing Dumbledore and saving himself was cowardly. Which is why I believe that Snape will do something to redeem himself in Book 7. And the neat thing is, if it does play out this way, Voldemort will have harmed *himself* with the curse, by giving Snape the motivation to finally do something big for the Good Guys. (Hmmm...maybe Carol has already hinted at this towards the end of her post...) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 02:49:03 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:49:03 -0000 Subject: JKR interviews about Snape WAS: Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140184 > Betsy Hp: > For me, it's because interviews are *not* canon. If it's not in the > books, then it's commentary. And *especially* when we're talking > about something the mystery element in the story hinges on, I really > start taking JKR's words with a whopping grain of salt. So yeah, I > tend to ignore the interviews when it comes to Snape. Because at > this point, JKR isn't trying to clarify anything. Alla: OK, so out of curiousity, do you think that the direction JKR will go with Snape character will be contrary to what she says about him? I mean, do you think that she is not portraying "deeply horrible person", but a "nice guy"? I guess what I am asking is that regardless of your interpretation of authoritarial intent, are you saying that the intent which JKR expesses in the interviews is false? Non-existent? I mean, of course what JKR says about Snape in the interviews is very close to how I interpet him, so I am happy to read the interviews, but are you saying that she will go completely different road? Vivian brought up JKR's quote that to her knowledge she did not mislead the readers in the interviews. Are you saying that she lied? I guess my question to you would be when you say you ignore the interviews when it comes to Snape, are you pretending that they do not exist? Isn't ignoring the author evaluation of one of her characters makes our analysis incomplete? I am not saying that we are obligated to interpret the interviews the same way, but I am not quite sure how is it possible to ignore them completely. I am not saying that you should pay attention to interviews, but to me it is similar to when we try to solve jigsaw puzzle ( thanks, Potioncat) and deliberately threw away one of the pieces and trying to solve the puzzle without this piece and then wonder why the picture is not complete. JMO, Alla. From vmonte at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 02:56:16 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:56:16 -0000 Subject: Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty (Re: Hearing from the Great Middle) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140185 vmonte wrote: It's curious how people are always ready to make excuses for Snape. Now it's the DADA position that made him go bad? He had no choice? zgirnius: I do not feel that the curse *made* him go bad, no. My comment about liking the DADA theory for why Snape took the UV reflects my admiration of Carol's long and interesting post 137,961. She argues that the curse might work by exploiting the flaws of each of the teachers in such a way that they each contribute to their own downfall. vmonte: Ok, I see what you're saying. I'll check out Carol's post. Do you both think that the position was cursed during the penseive memory that Harry witnessed where it looked like Tom was reaching for his wand? I think it was Fintwich who mentioned this thought? Vivian From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 03:20:23 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 03:20:23 -0000 Subject: Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty (Re: Hearing from the Great Middle) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140186 > Betsy Hp: > I'm under the impression that Dumbledore was going to stay with > Slughorn until he got the "yes" he was after. So I do think Snape > knew, at the time of Spinner's End, that he was going to be DADA > professor. zgirnius: Thanks for that! I now feel free to believe the DADA theory completely. ;-) And in the spirit of returning the favor... > Betsy Hp: > This is where I'm aware I'm kind of on my own, but honestly? I've > yet to Snape behaving as a "deeply horrible person". He's certainly > never struck me as sadistic (where do folks get that idea? I > seriously wonder), and I've not really seen him abuse his powers. zgirnius: It's interesting that you should say this. Earlier this summer, having read JKR's comments about how children understand what teachers like Snape are about, I conducted a highly non-scientific poll with a sample of one (my nephew, now entering the fourth grade, who had just finished HBP and is a long-time fan of the series.) I asked him what he thought of Snape as a teacher, and he responded he thought Snape was a good teacher. He knows his stuff and doesn't put up with cr*p from his students. So there are at least two of you... Alla: I am not saying that you should pay attention to interviews, but to me it is similar to when we try to solve jigsaw puzzle ( thanks, Potioncat) and deliberately threw away one of the pieces and trying to solve the puzzle without this piece and then wonder why the picture is not complete. zgirnius: You asked this question of Betsy Hp, but since I feel similarly about interviews, I'll try to explain my own feeling about them. The bottom line is that the picture is not going to be complete until Book 7 is out anyway. I will actually be very interested to hear anything she has to say about her characters and her created world at that time, and can't imagine that I would regard any such comments as anything *but* canon. Until that time, though, I think that in her interviews she would tend to want to "protect" her work, and our unspoiled enjoyment of it. If there are secrets she does not want us to guess, I would think she would try to steer us away from them in interview comments. I don't really see this as lying or misleading us, in the sense that she is *already* misleading us, with the text of her books to date. She's trying to be consistent with that, IMO. I don't think JKR is trying to mislead us, so much as she is trying to protect her creation. As an example (the one Vivian brought up earlier) she calls Snape a 'deeply horrible person'. For many fans this is obvious...so is it really misleading to say this? Also, interviews are extemporaneous. She does not have time to think through what exactly she wants to say on any given subject. Whereas I am convinced she gives many aspects of her writing a great deal of thought. Which makes interview comments have a much higher probability of being wrong with no bad intent on JKR's part. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Sep 15 03:25:06 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 03:25:06 -0000 Subject: Keep Harry Horcrux Free Challenge! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140187 > Saraquel proposes: > > > If Harry was a Horcrux....... that piece of soul > > would have been really trying to suck the life out of him and > > bring itself to life......... > > >Sandy Counters: > >I credit Voldemort's inability to drain, or even influence Baby > Harry, to remnants of Lily's protective magic. > > Saraquel replies: > But just because Lily's blood protects > Harry, it does not necessarily mean that he is a Horcrux. Valky: True, but it does, give enough canon reason to establish that Harry could be a Horcrux, and not be possessed by Voldemort. I do believe this is enough to satisfy the question, right? So Harry stays at Privet drive 100% of the time, Why? Which leads me to my other counter argument. > >Valky said: > >Two words.. Dudley Demented. Valky again: Harry goes nowhere with the Dursleys' *ever*. The mere mention of Harry coming along to Dudley's eleventh birthday incites him into a tantrum.. I-I-I d-don't want h-h-im to come! Harry notes that Dudleys tears are fake at this time and that it had been years since he *really* cried. Dudley could just screw up his face and wail anytime to get what he wanted. OTOH the fact that Harry can remember a time when Dudley might have really cried, years ago but fails to remember any reason why just sits uncomfortably. Dudley seems to relish seeing Harry mistreated by his parents, but he draws the line at going away from the house with Harry. Yes I grasp at thin air, but something has to explain these unanswered questions.. What terrible memory did Dudley have with the Dementors, what has he *really* cried about before that Harry can't actually remember, does it have anything to do with Harry being away from Privet Drive in a place other than Mrs Figgs? (another thing he can't remember ever having experienced) why does Harry recognise Tom Riddles name as though it were a friend he had when he was very young and long since *forgotten*, Harry had never had any friends, *Dudley* had made sure of that. > Saraquel: > Harry needs protecting from a great many things. That DEs were > active after Voldemort's demise is clear from the attack on the > Longbottoms, and of course Harry definitely needs protection after > Voldemort has returned. Valky: Dumbledore says that he knew the great risk to Harry was Voldemort returning to full power. He didn't know when and didn't specify how, indeed he didn't really know how. But he expected it, and he was right to imagine any number of ways Voldemort could have done it, we have already seen two, Horcrux Harry is only one more. > Saraquel: > I bow to the logic or your arguments, and take the hit. A mere > trifle I assure you, a flesh wound only, for you have stated the > counter argument for me Valky, thankyou ? the connection, by your > disconnection arguments, cannot be through a horcrux, which does > imply something other than that being involved. And my argument is, > if that is the case, why does Harry need to be a horcrux as well? Valky: As I said, to explain other things. Not least of all, why the prophecy might actually be declaring Harry to not truly be alive. Neither can live does imply that neither are actually *truly* alive, doesn't it. My argument is that the elements we are given for Godrics Hollow.. Avada Kedavra, Horcrux, scar, powers tranferred, connection, love residing in the skin.. don't bond together in one place they don't all belong to the same set so why not have more than one result. > Valky countered: > OTOH, one can remove the scar from the question, and yet postulate > that Harry is possibly a Horcrux. We have seen the scar shape on a > Horcrux before, > > Saraquel replies: > Have we? I think the Ring was cracked, it gave no indication in my > memory of being necessarily in the shape of a lightening bolt. Valky: I don't recall it in the text, no. I am mostly referring to the illustration of the Ring on the spine of the HBP book. It may or may not be canon, but I think it's possible JKR will have insisted the lightning bolt shape be removed from the illustration if it was *all* wrong. > > Valky countered: > and Moody evidently believed that there were possible > indications of Harry being susceptible to possession by Voldemort. > > Saraquel replies: > Who is not vulnerable to such a thing? Maybe only DD was immune. If > Voldemort wants to possess you, Voldemort will, IMO. Valky: Granted. This was a very weak attack. > > Valky countered: > There is also the Silver instruments, which Dumbledore used to > conclude that two Snakes were in essence divided. > > Saraquel replies: > I think you are assuming the two snakes represent Harry and > Voldemort. My reading is that they are the first clue that DD has > that Voldemort has made a horcrux of Nagini. In essence divided, > but actually from the same source. Valky's tries to dodge the Tarantallegra from Saraquels wand, and ends up flat on her back, legs flailing helplessly in the air: Yes, it brings in an assumption that isn't necessarily true. There's only one thing for it - "Finite" says Valky swishing her wand up at her fastmoving feet - You have this one, it is ever likely to be the evidence Dumbledore based his assumption that Nagini is a Horcrux on. > > Valky countered: > And there is the chance that a Horcrux was made at Godrics Hollow, > so hence the very real chance that it ended up in the wrong > body/container. > > Saraquel replies: > JKR has specified that the AK curse was used, and we know that > another spell is needed to create a Horcrux. First the murder, then > the Horcrux. Voldemort was in no state to cast the Horcrux spell. Valky: If we assume that all of a ritual making of a horcrux happens *after* the soul split, which we can't. So this is a fence seat if I ever saw one. Saraquel: > Valky countered by dodging the hex and pointing out that Horcruxes > are in the mix and we should consider them. Yes, we should consider > them, but I do not yet believe it is *necessary* for Harry to be a > Horcrux for the plot to resolve. Nor do I. But I do find it hard to wend a path towards a final showdown scenario without ending up at Horcrux Harry. It can only continue to be the reason for ignoring good conclusions for *so* long. If it continues to surface without any direct solicitation, then I might have to just accept it. Valky From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 03:33:56 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 03:33:56 -0000 Subject: JKR's interviews about Snape and in general. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140188 > zgirnius: > The bottom > line is that the picture is not going to be complete until Book 7 is > out anyway. I will actually be very interested to hear anything she > has to say about her characters and her created world at that time, > and can't imagine that I would regard any such comments as anything > *but* canon. Until that time, though, I think that in her interviews > she would tend to want to "protect" her work, and our unspoiled > enjoyment of it. If there are secrets she does not want us to guess, > I would think she would try to steer us away from them in interview > comments. Alla: Absolutely, BUT that is what she is doing, no? When someone asks her a question which she does not want to answer, she says that she cannot answer that question. I can give you many, many examples of her doing just that - refusing to answer the question, which will give away the secret. Connection between Harry and Vodlemort untill recently was being such example. Now, when it is just one book left, I guess she does not mind giving our some little hints - like when she said that Dumbledore's family would be important line of inquiry, that she cannot talk about two - ways mirror, etc. But earlier she simply flat out refused to answer questions,which would give away importnat plot points. I am not saying that the interviews would be hundred percent fool proof, but I do think that she knows quite well where she is going with Snape and when she does not refuse to answer about his character, I guess, I honestly do not understand how is it possible to ignore it completely? JMO, Alla From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 03:35:46 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 03:35:46 -0000 Subject: Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty (Re: Hearing from the Great Middle) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140189 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" wrote: > Until that time, though, I think that in her interviews > she would tend to want to "protect" her work, and our unspoiled > enjoyment of it. If there are secrets she does not want us to > guess, I would think she would try to steer us away from them in > interview comments. I don't really see this as lying or misleading > us, in the sense that she is *already* misleading us, with the text > of her books to date. She's trying to be consistent with that, IMO. > I don't think JKR is trying to mislead us, so much as she is trying > to protect her creation. On the other hand, this *is* the author who gave us the absolute exact important question before HBP that was answered in it. She deliberately steers us away from useless speculation, such as Vampire! Snape and intricate theories about the Longbottoms. In some ways, she makes it painfully clear what the questions and issues are--she just doesn't give us the information about the denoument. [See Peter and life debts in the latest interview.] Personally, I think the whole "JKR is deeply sneaky" thing is massively overrated. It's really pretty clear where the ambiguity and tricksiness lies, in the books, and the interview refusals to clarify match up. Then there are the things that we've obsessed over that get a simple "No, not important". > As an example (the one Vivian brought up earlier) she calls Snape > a 'deeply horrible person'. For many fans this is obvious...so is > it really misleading to say this? I'd put that comment into a different category, myself. She's obviously both bemused and confused by the fan perception of and reaction to certain characters, particularly both Draco and Snape. As such, she occasionally comes out and gives us a partial view of her perspective upon a character. I think this is a really valuable predictive heuristic. Much of the adult fandom may loathe Hagrid (in an unscientific poll, he tends to lose), but we know that Rowling loves him--which means betting against Hagrid is a low-return proposition. Similarly, if you know that she's made those comments about Snape, and you assume at least some good faith on her part, there are things you might be more wary of predicting. Nothing misleading about giving her own estimation of a character. I'm reasonably confident that her character commentary will have enough solid confirmation by the end of book 7 to be able to cite chapter and verse. She might even have fun deliberately shooting down some of our extrapolations of intention, especially regarding some characters. -Nora ponders some zzzzzzzz... From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 03:43:33 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 03:43:33 -0000 Subject: Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty (Re: Hearing from the Great Middle) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140190 > vmonte: > Ok, I see what you're saying. I'll check out Carol's post. Do you both > think that the position was cursed during the penseive memory that > Harry witnessed where it looked like Tom was reaching for his wand? I > think it was Fintwich who mentioned this thought? zgirnius: Yes, I recall reading Finwitch's post (number 139525). I think it could certainly have been done at that time. But this would mean that TR would have had to modify DD's memory, as described in that post. And in such a way that the Pensieve memory appears almost perfectly normal. This seems a tall order. I could also see TR just thinking about doing the curse right then and then coming to his senses. And casting the curse out of Dumbledore's sight. It's not exactly like cursing a person or an item, is it? For that I would imagine you need to be pretty close to the object. But the "DADA Position" is a rather intangible thing to curse, so I could imagine that it might be doable from anywhere on the Hogwarts grounds, really. From vmonte at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 03:48:02 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 03:48:02 -0000 Subject: Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty (Re: Hearing from the Great Middle) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140191 zgirnius: It's interesting that you should say this. Earlier this summer, having read JKR's comments about how children understand what teachers like Snape are about, I conducted a highly non-scientific poll with a sample of one (my nephew, now entering the fourth grade, who had just finished HBP and is a long-time fan of the series.) I asked him what he thought of Snape as a teacher, and he responded he thought Snape was a good teacher. He knows his stuff and doesn't put up with cr*p from his students. So there are at least two of you... vmonte: Your post made me smile. My 4 year old son loves Harry Potter, and always wants me to pretend play with him. The other day he asked me to pretend that I was professor Snape. Before I even started acting my son looked at me and said: "Mom, you know how you can trick me? Make pretend you're my friend." He also told me that Sirius was mad during the Whomping Willow scene in the PoA movie because he was dirty and he needed a bath. :) Vivian From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 03:34:17 2005 From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 03:34:17 -0000 Subject: Horcrux Harry ??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140192 darqali wrote: > > How is "horcrux" pronounced? Is there agreement? And what is the > > proper plural? Horcruxes? Horcruxi? Juli added: > The plural is Horcruxes, that's how Dumbledore says it, and it's > canon, the pronunciation is trickier, but I think most agree that it's > pronounced as HORace... I don't agree, but... hpfan_mom: Scholastic.com has a pronunciation guide that you can get to from this link: http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/reference/ According to this guide, the plural is horcruxes, pronounced hor-CRUX- es. You can hear someone say the word (JKR?). Not exactly canon, but perhaps Krum will need help with the pronunciation in Book 7 and it will be confirmed. hpfan_mom From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Sep 15 05:20:37 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 05:20:37 -0000 Subject: Proving loyalty (Re: Hearing from the Great Middle) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140193 > >>Jen: > > I really believe we will see an *unmanipulated fact* to prove why > Dumbledore trusted Snape. > > But I do think while Snape's reason for changing sides earned him > a second chance, they did not gain Dumbledore's complete trust > until backed up with irrefutable proof. Betsy Hp: I think there will *need* to be irrefutable proof for fandom to be satisfied. And I think JKR, clever as she's been in creating ambiguous!Snape, realizes it. Harry will need it as well. And that proof will be the final(?) step in his transition from boy to man. Allie now: Scenario: Snape attacked by Dementors. Snape casts his Patronus, and it is a.... Lily!!! (We are told that it is *usually* but not always an animal, right?) Harry realizes at once the reason why Dumbledore is sure that Snape is on their side. I'm not on that particular SHIP, but it's fun to speculate. From msbeadsley at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 06:15:44 2005 From: msbeadsley at yahoo.com (msbeadsley) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 06:15:44 -0000 Subject: Keep Harry Horcrux Free Challenge! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140194 wrote: > Ah, the expected riposte, which I admit has singed my hair, but I'm > still on my feet. This is the strongest counter argument to this > proposition, in my opinion. But just because Lily's blood protects > Harry, it does not necessarily mean that he is a Horcrux. Harry > needs protecting from a great many things. That DEs were active > after Voldemort's demise is clear from the attack on the > Longbottoms, and of course Harry definitely needs protection after > Voldemort has returned. It wasn't my intent to imply that Lily's protection in any way implies that Harry *is* a horcrux; but her protection more than adequately explains how Harry could be one and yet not be drained or influenced by the piece of soul he harbors. > Saraquel: > disconnection arguments, cannot be through a horcrux, which does > imply something other than that being involved. And my argument is, > if that is the case, why does Harry need to be a horcrux as well? Harry being a horcrux is just one thing which might account for why Legilimency works without eye contact between himself and Voldemort and in spite of magical barriers which should prevent it. When added to the rest of this debate, it carries some weight in the direction that Harry is a horcrux. IMO. > Sandy countered: > So, if that repeated action made of Voldemort's soul something so > fragile and tattered that the sort of violent (house-flattening) > magic GH involved could make an accidental horcrux in, on, or of > Harry (and this is the theory I find most plausible), Dumbledore > might not guess it. > > Saraquel responds: > Now Sandy, such a slurr on Dumblemdore's powers of reasoning, > deduction and anticipation I cannot leave without a determined, and > well aimed jelly legs counter hex :-) 'Scuse me! The Ministry has rules about hexing Muggles, you know! (Mebbe I is, and mebbe I isn't...but nobody said nuthin' ta me 'bout no wands in this challenge!) > this. In my mind, he has either been through the scenario and > discounted it, or he has some very special reason for not telling > Harry. IMO, he would have told Harry in the Horcrux chapter at the In my mind, it is likelier that Dumbledore considered the possibility and weighed what he saw as its likelihood against Harry's emotional state and what could be done about it if it were true (IMO, not much). You can argue that Dumbledore should have learned his lesson about keeping information from Harry and then I can counter that Dumbledore *was* indeed still keeping info from Harry: (1) why he really trusted Snape and (2) the details around what happened to his hand. (The hand story could have been intended to go along with a little talk about how Harry just *might* be another, unintentional horcrux himself.) The prophecy itself hit Harry very hard (harder than I'd have expected, to be honest, all things considered) the year before with the knowledge that he would have to kill or be killed. The notion that Harry himself could be a horcrux and that his own death would have to be a part of his final defeat of Voldemort is so much more devastating than the comparatively benevolent terms of the prophecy that I can easily see Dumbledore waiting for just the right moment to share that possibility with Harry. But Dumbledore died before he got that right moment. > A touch of my wand to my hat to you Sandy, BUT, Riddle had created > himself a body *before* he invited the Basilisk to the party and IMO > a wizards powers probably reside in their bodies. I have already This argument just boggles my mind; I had no more considered this than I'd pluck a chicken in preparation for making an omelet (for it strikes me very much as a chicken/egg question). If the horcruxes are all capable of re-embodying Voldemort entire, powers and all, with the mere addition of "essence of young witch or wizard," then why bother with unicorn blood, the PS/SS, or relying on Barty Jr. to produce Harry? Why not just have Quirrell, as the first available warm body, hunt up a horcrux and slip it under some young and careless witch or wizard's pillow? We saw TMR pick up Harry's wand, which was a physical act implying a body, sure...but he was remarkably reticent aside from that. IMO. I guess I always assumed he was only somewhat there physically and would need to do further magic before he was entirely "back." > Saraquel replies: > Oh Sandy, thank goodness you're only *playing* devil's advocate ? > such slurs on DDs character are so painful to me :-) No, I think DD > would have bitten the bullet, he knew after OotP how foolish it was > for him to delay telling Harry. Are you suggesting that he did not > learn by this mistake? DD may make mistakes, but I would bet my > life, he always learns from them. I don't see it as a slur on Dumbledore's character at all. ;-) He was still compiling info on the horcruxes as of Harry's sixth year; for him to have brought it up any earlier, when it probably seemed quite a bit less likely, knowing how hard it would probably hit Harry, would have been unconscionable, IMO. > Well all in all, I think we have kept up a good solid defence of the > Harry is *not* a horcrux theory. And as JKR in no way indicates > explicitly that we should think of Harry as a horcrux, I think it is > in the hands of the pro horcrux theorists to make the case why it is > *necessary* for him to be one. I am more convinced now that Harry is a horcrux than I was before. I can accept previously unknown protective mother magic (PMM), Harry's survival, Voldemort's vaporization, and even the flattening of the house at GH. But for Harry to have part of Voldemort inside him and have that be the result of yet another unqualified kind of, er, incidental magic instead of being something that has been described to us at length and fits all too well...well, that just strains my disbelief outright. Yep, he's gotta be a horcrux. IMO. Sandy aka msbeadsley From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Sep 15 06:45:57 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 06:45:57 -0000 Subject: Horcrux Harry ??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140195 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hpfan_mom" wrote: darqali: > > > How is "horcrux" pronounced? Is there agreement? And what is > the > > > proper plural? Horcruxes? Horcruxi? Juli: > > The plural is Horcruxes, that's how Dumbledore says it, and it's > > canon, the pronunciation is trickier, but I think most agree that > it's > > pronounced as HORace... I don't agree, but... hpfan_mom: > Scholastic.com has a pronunciation guide that you can get to from > this link: > > http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/reference/ > > According to this guide, the plural is horcruxes, pronounced hor- CRUX- > es. You can hear someone say the word (JKR?). Not exactly canon, > but perhaps Krum will need help with the pronunciation in Book 7 and > it will be confirmed. Geoff: Interestingly, since JKR has often drawn on Latin in the names of magical objects and spells etc., in this case she has departed from the original and gone down the road often used by English speakers of using English plurals. The correct Latin plural of "crux" is "cruces". There was a recent discussion about the "h" being silent and some of us pointed out that a Latin "h" was sounded. I think the pronunciation given above is the most obvious. The words which immediately come to my mind - horticulture, hormone, Horace, Horatio, horn are all similar. It should be remembered, though, that Jo Rowling has produced a certain amount of pseudo-Latin in the books. :-) From donjokat.kat at verizon.net Wed Sep 14 22:12:20 2005 From: donjokat.kat at verizon.net (Katharine) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:12:20 -0400 Subject: Emma & the HBP (was Re: Harry Potter and Elizabeth Bennet References: Message-ID: <000b01c5b979$61007b10$c533fea9@DonJoKat> No: HPFGUIDX 140196 Potioncat: I just finished "Emma" and highly recommend it. The Shippers in our group as well as the Anti-shippers would particularly enjoy it. The main character spends far too much time "shipping" and the results are well... The most obivious Harry Potter connection is the vast number of characters who aren't quite what they seem... or who arent' what Emma thinks they seem. And the part that is straight out of HBP, or perhaps reflected "Emma" in HBP is when two of the characters are discussing a letter. I forgot to mark the chapter and can't find it now. At any rate, the two are arguing about the handwriting and what it says about a person. One character thinks the handwriting looks like a woman's because it is so small. The other insists it is small but strong. Katharine: I'm afraid I've only seen the movie, and have not yet read the book so far (so please forgive me and correct me if I have it wrong b/c of movie inaccuracies). But as the romance is the focus of Emma, and as the romance in Emma features a woman and a man with a 'supposedly' "brother/sister"-like platonic relationship (*cough* H/Hr! *cough*) that turns out to be something more in the end, with the protagonist not realizing it until after the partner did. So, considering how the romance turned out in HBP (R/Hr), Emma is about as different from HBP as one can get--frankly I'm a bit confused myself as to why JK likes the book so much when she scornfully dismisses those kind of relationships as between the protagonist and her love interest in Emma. *shrug*--but that is, I suppose, part of the mystery of JK's mind. Plus there's the fact that the romances written by Austen are about ten times the quality of JK's soap opera-like romance scenes. -Katharine From jeffhodapp at juno.com Thu Sep 15 06:39:33 2005 From: jeffhodapp at juno.com (jeffhodapp) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 06:39:33 -0000 Subject: What is the agreement between Dumbledore and Petunia? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140197 I was re-reading the Half-Blood Prince and I wonder what effect Dumbledore's death will have on the Dursleys? Petunia blanched at the thought of Harry coming of age. This seemed to be a hint. Was there more damage to Dudley than being doted on? I think he is in for a surprise. jeffhodapp From alimcj at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 04:56:23 2005 From: alimcj at yahoo.com (AliMcJ) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 04:56:23 -0000 Subject: Why a Badger? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140198 > Alison wrote: > > Does anyone have any insight on why the Hufflepuff mascot > > is a Badger and what sort of symbology it might have? Gatta: > The badger digs tenaciously in the earth; if we follow the > four-elements theory of the Hogwarts houses, Hufflepuff is > the earth house, and Hufflepuffs are known for their slow- > and-steady qualities--not much imagination or esprit, but > they get the job done. They are also tenacious and fierce > in defense of their sett. Thanks. That gives me something to think about -- I'm going to chew on that for a while, the four elements, especially as Hufflepuff sounds like air. However Prof. Sprout is the head, and that is definitely earth. Appreciate the answer that can lead me to some other thoughts on this: it's been puzzling me since summer '04, when one of my dolls (Pinky Sepulveda) went off to Harry Potter camp and got sorted into Hufflepuff; she had wanted to pursue her study of herbology, so that was just fine with her, but she didn't like the plodding stereotype of the house and then started thinking about the Badger (true -- I did send a doll off to Harry Potter camp; good fun until the muggles had fits about all of them all over the place and some dementor problems. They all had to return to their homes early). I just ran across a Badger in one of the Chronicles of Narnia books and it started me wondering about the Badger in The Wind in the Willows. Has anybody pursued these books as sources? --Alison From vmonte at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 10:05:24 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:05:24 -0000 Subject: Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty (Re: Hearing from the Great Middle) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140199 zgirnius: Yes, I recall reading Finwitch's post (number 139525). I think it could certainly have been done at that time. But this would mean that TR would have had to modify DD's memory, as described in that post. And in such a way that the Pensieve memory appears almost perfectly normal. This seems a tall order. I could also see TR just thinking about doing the curse right then and then coming to his senses. And casting the curse out of Dumbledore's sight. It's not exactly like cursing a person or an item, is it? For that I would imagine you need to be pretty close to the object. But the "DADA Position" is a rather intangible thing to curse, so I could imagine that it might be doable from anywhere on the Hogwarts grounds, really. vmonte: No, something definitely happened there. It may have been something else, but there would be no reason to add the bit about the movement if it didn't mean anything. Vivian From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 11:00:55 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 11:00:55 -0000 Subject: What is the agreement between Dumbledore and Petunia? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140200 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jeffhodapp" wrote: > I was re-reading the Half-Blood Prince and I wonder what effect > Dumbledore's death will have on the Dursleys? Petunia blanched at the > thought of Harry coming of age. This seemed to be a hint. Was there > more damage to Dudley than being doted on? I think he is in for a > surprise. Amiable Dorsai: It's been my belief that the protection granted Harry must be reciprocal, that is, that the Dursleys are protected by the same magic. I have no canon for this notion, but it would explain why Petunia never let Vernon chuck Harry out. Petunia seems to know enough about the Wizarding World to understand that all of the odd disasters in the news could be the signs of a new war. The news that she and her family are about to lose their protection a year before she expected it would certainly shake her up. Amiable Dorsai From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 11:11:14 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 11:11:14 -0000 Subject: Missing 24 hours (was Spinner's End--further evidence...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140201 > > Hickengruendler: Yes, if there are some problems regarding the time in the Potterverse, I mostly assume it's a Flint. I also think that for example the missing 24 hours between the murder of Lily and James and Dumbledore delivering Harry to the Dursleys are simply that, a Flint. That seems pretty unlikely, the missing 24 happen during a single chapter of her first book. She can hardly have overlooked the fact that Harry was unaccounted for during that time. Probably, Dumbledore told Hagrid to grab Harry and get lost, while he (Dumbledore) figured out what to do next. Amiable Dorsai From vmonte at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 11:25:33 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 11:25:33 -0000 Subject: Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty (Re: Hearing from the Great Middle) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140202 Betsy Hp: This is where I'm aware I'm kind of on my own, but honestly? I've yet to Snape behaving as a "deeply horrible person". He's certainly never struck me as sadistic (where do folks get that idea? I seriously wonder), and I've not really seen him abuse his powers. Oh sure, he plays the big bad to Harry, but frankly, Harry usually deserves it. And yeah, I think Snape *did* seriously worry that Harry may become evil himself. The temptations were certainly there, and Snape would be painfully aware of how far a silly little boy could go if he started to believe his press. vmonte responds: Checkmate! You've finally revealed yourself completely. It's beyond me how you can say that you don't understand how folks get the idea that Snape is deeply horrible and sadistic when the author plainly states this as fact in her books and in her interviews. You are underestimating that "silly little boy" in my opinion. Then again, people who like to use this condescending turn of phrase, always do. Vivian From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 15 11:40:11 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 11:40:11 -0000 Subject: Emma & the HBP (was Re: Harry Potter and Elizabeth Bennet In-Reply-To: <000b01c5b979$61007b10$c533fea9@DonJoKat> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140203 > Katharine: So, considering how the romance turned out in HBP (R/Hr), Emma is about as different from HBP as one can get--frankly I'm a bit confused myself as to why JK likes the book so much when she scornfully dismisses those kind of relationships as between the protagonist and her love interest in Emma. *shrug*--but that is, I suppose, part of the mystery of JK's mind. Potioncat: Have not seen the "Emma" movie, IIRC, the reviews said there was little in common between the book and the movie. Knowing that JKR is an Austen fan, and wondering if there was any inspiration from Austen in JKR's works, I've read Austen with an eye for HP connections. To me the big connection between "Emma" and JKR's books, and for this discussion, "Emma" in particular is the red herrings. Yes, "Emma" is about romances and match making. In fact, think of Tonks in HBP, there's a character like her in "Emma". But the events in "Emma" can be compared to the non-shipping part of HP as well. The main comparison is that Emma believes she knows why certain other characters are behaving in a certain way. We see them through Emma's eyes. In the end, we discover many of them had very different reasons for their behavior than Emma and the reader thought. Sound familiar? Crouch!Moody for example. Percy and Penny. Possibly Snape? From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 12:28:14 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:28:14 -0000 Subject: Missing 24 hours (was Spinner's End--further evidence...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140204 Sorry to reply to my own post, but I messed up the attribution. My apologies to Hickengruendler. Here is the post with corrected attributions: Hickengruendler: Yes, if there are some problems regarding the time in the Potterverse, I mostly assume it's a Flint. I also think that for example the missing 24 hours between the murder of Lily and James and Dumbledore delivering Harry to the Dursleys are simply that, a Flint. Amiable Dorsai: That seems pretty unlikely, the missing 24 happen during a single chapter of her first book. She can hardly have overlooked the fact that Harry was unaccounted for during that time. Probably, Dumbledore told Hagrid to grab Harry and get lost, while he (Dumbledore) figured out what to do next. Amiable Dorsai From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 15 12:44:25 2005 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 08:44:25 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Invisibility cloak & MoM Security WAS:Snape informed Order? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140205 Betsy Hp: >I doubt it was obvious to the Death Eaters (and therefore Voldemort) >that the Order was guarding the Prophecy. They were using Moody's >invisibility cloak, after all. I imagine there was no knowledge of >Order guards until Snake!Voldemort used his super snaky powers to >spot the sleeping Arthur. PJ answers: You could be right about this but I'm not convinced. There are just too many questions regarding this IMO. For instance, Harry is said to be a rather small wizard and James's cloak is already too short to cover Harry fully - Malfoy spots him entering the train compartment in HBP by the flash of white sneaker. If these cloaks can't properly hide a child, would full grown adult wizards fare any better? Also, if we Muggles have motion sensors I should think that there would be something more than guards at the MoM which wouldn't be fooled by a Cloak (Sneakoscopes anyone? :)). We already know that LV has spies in the MoM which could warn him of the sudden interest in that section of the building. Else why would LV send Nagini to the MoM if he had no suspicions that his plan had gotten out? If LV is trying to hide his return, it would be so much easier for him to send a person to check that corridor since they at least have a prayer of coming up with an excuse for being there... but a huge snake is a whole lot harder to explain away and points directly to LV. It doesn't add up for me. PJ From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Sep 15 13:54:04 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:54:04 -0000 Subject: Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty (Re: Hearing from the Great Middle) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140206 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > When JKR tells me Snape is a deeply horrible person, abuses his power, is culpable in a way Voldemort is not, isn't 'too nice', well, I get it: He's a Very Mean Person. He was not even capable of *acting* nice like Voldemort, instead, he waved it around like a flag of honor--'look, Deeply Horrible Person over here.' > > All I'm saying is JKR has done a considerable job of shaping Snape into a person who has very few redeeming qualities in his *personality*. If indeed she is striving to tell us through text and interviews that Snape is evil, well yes, I'm guilty of missing her 'anvil size clues' on this one. > Pippin: Especially since we have another canon character who is a deeply horrible person, abuses his power, isn't nice at all, has in fact very few redeeming qualities in his personality, but "whatever Morphin was, he did not deserve to die as he did, blamed for murders he had not committed." Morfin is not someone I'd invite to dinner, and he sure isn't my idea of boyfriend material, but if JKR wanted to convince me that he was evil, she failed. Lately I've been noticing JKR's comments on instincts. Dumbledore says that Voldemort has instincts for cruelty, secrecy and domination. In opposition to him, we can see that other characters have instincts for protectiveness, openness and willingness to serve. She says that James protected Harry and Lily by instinct, but with Lily something more than instinct was involved. That JKR calls these things instincts suggests that she thinks we need all of them to survive. But love, at least in the Potterverse, is not simply a creation of instinct. It is a power in itself, a power which allows the characters to realize that there is something more important than survival. To Voldemort, untouched by love, this is nonsense. There is nothing more important than survival to him. But only because there was something more important than survival to Lily was she able to ensure that Harry survived. We are set up by the vow to think that Snape killed Dumbledore so that he himself would survive, and this, in JKR's cosmos, would be to reject the power and purpose of love. It would be evil. But there is the possibility that Snape, in accordance with Dumbledore's wishes, allowed Dumbledore to die and expected to die himself because there was something more important than survival. That would be an act of sacrifice and heroism. This leads me to wonder if Snape deliberately misperformed the curse, expecting to die, his look of hatred and revulsion because doing what was right rather than what was easy was about to get him killed for no practical gain. He survived, then, not due to some plot of his or Dumbledore's but due to Dumbledore's impending death and the tangled conditions of the vow. Snape really doesn't act to me like a man who has just committed a murder either reluctantly or gleefully. He acts more like one who has had a narrow escape and is anxious to get away before something worse happens. Under this theory, Snape would have proved his courage to himself, and would not be upset by Harry's accusation of cowardice. Indeed he is not, at first, and almost banteringly brings up James. But then Harry says,"Kill me like you killed him." Harry, of course, is speaking of Dumbledore. But Snape has been talking about *James*. And for a moment we glimpse Snape in hell "...his face was suddenly demented, inhuman, as though he was in as much pain as the yelping, howling dog stuck in the burning house behind them--" before he finishes with " CALL ME COWARD!" What he meant at first, I think, was " Don't say I killed James." There's the remorse, if anyone but me is looking for it. Pippin From parisfan_ca at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 14:14:22 2005 From: parisfan_ca at yahoo.com (parisfan_ca) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:14:22 -0000 Subject: What is the agreement between Dumbledore and Petunia? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140207 > > Amiable Dorsai wrote: > It's been my belief that the protection granted Harry must be > reciprocal, that is, that the Dursleys are protected by the same > magic. I have no canon for this notion, but it would explain why > Petunia never let Vernon chuck Harry out. > It struck me as well that it probably was a two way street that not only was Harry protected at the Dursley's house but Aunt petunia and fam. would be protected as well. I also figured that Petunia did not let Vernon kick out was also because she figured there'd be those in the WW that would be watching as well and come down on her like a tome of bricks if she did allow Harry to get chucked out of the home. Laurie From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 15 14:21:16 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:21:16 -0000 Subject: Too much information? (wasRe: JKR's interviews about Snape and in general. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140208 Alla wrote: >snip< > I am not saying that the interviews would be hundred percent fool > proof, but I do think that she knows quite well where she is going > with Snape and when she does not refuse to answer about his > character, I guess, I honestly do not understand how is it possible > to ignore it completely? Potioncat: Well, the interviews are a mixed blessing. (Sort of like reading the last page first.) But to me it's like Christmas time at our house. The kids are making guesses at what's under the tree. Some times we string them on, knowing it will make the surprise even better; sometimes we come out right and tell them they're wrong, knowing it'll be a bigger disappoinment later if they're anticipating a special present that isn't coming. But we don't really deal with each guess in the same way. And I don't think JKR does either. Sometimes we realise we're about to say too much, or we just did say too much. I think that happens to JKR too. On a slighlty different thread, ordinary readers don't know the same details that we do. Those of us on this list know off the tops of our heads how old charaters are, when their birthdays are, that Theodore's mother is dead, that the Prewetts were Molly's brothers, that Dean's father was a wizard who was killed by LV, that the bartender is DD's brother. Do we need to know any of that? We've certainly used some of that information in making our theories. Do you realise there are tons of fans who never read those interviews? It doesn't take anything away from the basic story if you don't know those things. Does it add to the story? Does it add to the fun? The books themselves are full of little details about minor characters that make them seem perhaps more important than they are. Some of them have their 15 minutes of fame and fade away again. Does that muddle the story at all? Or does it provide a backdrop to help set the mood or mystery? Should the minor characters be less fleshed out? Did she give us too much about Neville's family in the books? How has it helped the story for us to know about Frank and Alice? Do we really need to know about Neville's uncle or that Aunt Marge's dog? I know, the 8th book, the one for charity, to tie up the loose ends, can be "Harry Potter and the School of Red Herrings". Potioncat, wishing there was an easy way to check spelling at yahoo. From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Thu Sep 15 15:08:15 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:08:15 -0000 Subject: Keep Harry Horcrux Free Challenge! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140209 Hi there I'm firmly inside the Harry-Is-Not-a-Horcrux camp and although my argumentative powers are feeble, I thought I'd aid Saraquel by throwing in my 2 knuts. Saraquel proposes: 2)Why does Voldemort need to use legilimency? If Harry was a Horcrux, embodied Voldemort wouldn't need to access Harry's mind through legilimancy, the Horcrux would presumably do it for him and Voldemort would know simply by being aware of that part of his soul. Valky counters: Legilimency would still be necessary even if Harry was a Horcrux I think. We are explicitly given by Dumbledore that Voldemort is probably not aware of his Horcruxes. This of course acts as a balancer too, we, therefore, certainly cannot say, either, that the connection between Harry and Voldemort is because of Harry having accidentally become a Horcrux. In any fashion, the connection, and the scar are additional to, or other than a Horcrux, IMO. Sandy counters: Snape tells Harry that Legilimency often requires eye contact and that Hogwarts is surrounded with protections that should prevent it from happening anyway. "The usual rules do not seem to apply to you, Potter. The curse that failed to kill you seems to have forged some kind of connection between you and the Dark Lord." OoP Ch. 24 US, Occlumency. So it seems clearly stated that something *besides* (or instead of) Legilimency is at work here. Elyse: I have a hard time believing this argument. In their first Occlumency lesson, when Snape explains what it is, Harry says "And why does Professor Dumbledore think I need it sir?" Snape gives him a look full of contempt, and goes "Surely even you could have worked that out by now Potter, the Dark Lord is highly skilled at Legilimency-" Now if there was something other than Legilimency at work here why was it necessary to teach Harry its opposite - Occlumency? I dont believe Dumbledore threw such violently antagonistic people together just to make them bond. Even Lupin and Sirius are shocked when they find out Snape refused to teach Harry anymore. And Dumbledore's reaction in the end, where he says a lot of things like "It became even more important/urgent for you to close your mind" "I have already said it was a mistake not to teach you myself" Note that here he says his mistake was not to teach Harry himself NOT "It was a mistake to teach you Occlumency thinking LV would use Legilimency when it was something else at work." Surely if it wasnt Legilimency, DD would have admitted it and apologized to Snape and Harry? He would have figured it out surely? Or is this another "slur on Dumblemdore's powers of reasoning, deduction and anticipation? " Saraquel proposed: > 4)Wizards and Muggles > This one is my favourite and I think the most difficult to counter. > Presuming that both wizards and muggles both have souls - there is > no cannon evidence to support this, but I feel reasonably confident > that it is so. The difference between muggles and witches (let's > have gender balances here) is their magical ability ? their powers. > It therefore seems to me that magical powers are a separate entity > to the soul. Sandy countered: The ability to talk to snakes is IMO the most obvious thing (besides the scar) that Harry got from Voldemort. So the fragment of Voldie's soul in the diary had it, and so does Harry. How's that for a counter? Elyse: I agree with Saraquel, magical powers are a separate entity to the soul. In PoA Lupin says if your soul is sucked out you become "an empty shell" devoid of thought, feeling, you simply exist. So this indicates not only that the mind and personality is a function of the soul (tangent to discussion I know) but also that your magical power - the ability to harness magic out of ether or whatever - still resides in you. Only now that you have lost your mind you cannot use it. I believe the ability to speak Parseltongue must reside in genes or blood. If Slytherin's heirs could all speak Parseltongue, are you suggesting they had Salazar Slytherin's soul in them? Maybe after LV was "ripped" from his body, those magical powers transferred themselves to Harry, one of which was Parseltongue. Valky countered: BUt* Harry knows that Dumbledore thinks Nagini is a Horcrux. And Harry and Nagini share in common, a *lot* of things. This is a simple adding of 2 and 2 to make four to come to the conclusion that Harry may be another *like* Nagini.. So it could almost be said that Dumbledore *has* lead him all the way.. all that is now required is a bulletproof, watertight reason why Dumbledore couldn't tell Harry directly. We don't have that. Saraquel wrote: Valky struggled to counter. However, the curse that hit her wasn't an AK, and she managed to post something shaky about Harry being like Nagini. Saraquel helps her to her feet, and honours her as a powerful and skilled opponent :-) Elyse: (who admires both Saraquel and Valky's speculative and persuasion powers immensely) Sorry but what is it exactly that Harry and Nagini have in commom except the ability to speak Parseltongue? Please explain, even if it does seem obvious to you. I notice more similarity in LV and Nagini. However this does not mean Nagini is a Horcrux. I recall LV's features being snakelike at the time he approached Dumbledore for the DADA position. And I believe Nagini wasnt made a Horcrux until at least 10 years after that time. Hoping I gave Saraquel some support, Elyse From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 15:21:15 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:21:15 -0000 Subject: Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty (Re: Hearing from the Great Middle) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140210 Comments and responses on several posts about Snape and the value of JKR interviews... Nora wrote: > On the other hand, this *is* the author who gave us the absolute > exact important question before HBP that was answered in it. She > deliberately steers us away from useless speculation, such as Vampire! > Snape and intricate theories about the Longbottoms. zgirnius: Oh, I did not mean to suggest I would not consider anything in interviews. I think if JKR comes out and makes a bald statement of fact (Snape is not a vampire) that's good enough for me as well. Nora wrote: > Personally, I think the whole "JKR is deeply sneaky" thing is > massively overrated. It's really pretty clear where the ambiguity > and tricksiness lies, in the books, and the interview refusals to > clarify match up. Then there are the things that we've obsessed over that get a simple "No, not important". zgirnius: It's everything other than bald statements of fact that I tend not to put to much stock in. As you point out above, where her interview answers get ambiguous is precisely where the books are ambiguous or misleading as well. As I see it, I prefer to dissect the ambiguous clues in the books because I tend to think there she's spent some time getting things exactly the way she wants them. I think Potioncat's Christmas present analogy in another post says it better than I could: Potioncat wrote: > But to me it's like Christmas time at our house. The kids are > making guesses at what's under the tree. Some times we > string them on, knowing it will make the surprise even better; > sometimes we come out right and tell them they're wrong, knowing > it'll be a bigger disappoinment later if they're anticipating a > special present that isn't coming. But we don't really deal with > each guess in the same way. And I don't think JKR does either. > Sometimes we realise we're about to say too much, or we just did > say too much. I think that happens to JKR too. > zgirnius: > > As an example (the one Vivian brought up earlier) she calls Snape > > a 'deeply horrible person'. For many fans this is obvious...so is > > it really misleading to say this? > > I'd put that comment into a different category, myself. She's > obviously both bemused and confused by the fan perception of and > reaction to certain characters, particularly both Draco and Snape. > As such, she occasionally comes out and gives us a partial view of > her perspective upon a character. I think this is a really valuable > predictive heuristic. zgirnius: I'm not so sure, and it contributes to my unwillingness to rely muchh on interviews. I do seem to recall she has made comments about Draco before HBP came out which were along the lines of the Snape comment I refer to above. And yet (to me at least) Draco has become a much more interesting and sympathetic character than before the book came out. Possibly I am getting a picture other than the one she intends, of course! (I am not saying she lied to us about Draco, or was excessively misleading. Any number of negative things she might have said about him *are* true IMO even though at the same time she has managed to make me feel sorry for him, and care enough that I now hope that he may in the end get out of the mess into which he has gotten himself.) I do agree with your comments about Hagrid (she likes him, so betting against him is a losing proposition). But then, before I really got interested in the HP series to the point of going online to discuss it, or read interviews, I would have guessed that JKR really likes Hagrid. (Inexplicably, to my mind, I have never cared for him.) I could see making a case that she really likes him without invoking interview comments, though, just based on the way she has written him and the role he has played in the story. And (as your and my differing interpretations of the import of the Snape comment illustrate) with interview comments, we even need to debate 'is this just being ambiguous in the same way the books are, or is this letting us know a personal feeling about the character? or something else?'. We'd need to agree about that on any particular quote before we went to the next step of working out its implications. (Though here I am, doing just that...) Alla: > I am not saying that the interviews would be hundred percent fool > proof, but I do think that she knows quite well where she is going > with Snape and when she does not refuse to answer about his > character, I guess, I honestly do not understand how is it possible > to ignore it completely? zgirnius: Oh yes, I too am sure she does know where she is going with Snape. Everything I have read her saying about him, though, seems to me to be consistent with preserving the ambiguity and possibilities which (IMO) she has so carefully written into the books. I don't believe that she chooses to answer these questions because she wants to give us additional information about her intentions at this time. I think Potioncat's "Christmas present clues" analogy is a better explanation of why she does not just refuse point-blank to say anything about Snape. I expect that some answers about Snape are definitely among the 'presents under the tree' which we will be opening when we get our hands on Book 7. From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 15 15:25:06 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:25:06 -0000 Subject: JKR's interviews about Snape and in general. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140211 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > I am not saying that the interviews would be hundred percent fool > proof, but I do think that she knows quite well where she is going > with Snape and when she does not refuse to answer about his > character, I guess, I honestly do not understand how is it possible > to ignore it completely? Marianne: And they're not foolproof. In Part 3 of the recent TLC/Mugglenet interview she says that the Potters were in hiding at the time of Harry's christening. But, back in 2004 in the Edinburgh Book Festival interview she said that, at that time, it "looked as if the Potters would have to go into hiding..." Granted this example is probably not a big deal in the overall arc of the saga. But it illustrates that some small details may have a bit of wiggle room. However, I agree with you, Alla, that I don't think she is deliberately trying to mask what she thinks of her characters' traits in her interviews. Maybe, once the series is over, and JKR gives a massive follow-up interview to add the final touches on her authorial thoughts, we'll be able to sum it all up and decide, if what she has said about her characters jives with what she has written. Somehow, I suspect we will all be able to find something that just doesn't fit! Marianne From daniel.blakey at stcatz.ox.ac.uk Thu Sep 15 15:40:56 2005 From: daniel.blakey at stcatz.ox.ac.uk (dan_blakey) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:40:56 -0000 Subject: What is the agreement between Dumbledore and Petunia? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140212 Jeffhodapp wrote: > I was re-reading the Half-Blood Prince and I wonder what effect > Dumbledore's death will have on the Dursleys? Petunia blanched at > the thought of Harry coming of age. This seemed to be a hint. Was > there more damage to Dudley than being doted on? I think he is in for > a surprise. Now Dan: I wondered if the damage inflicted on Dudley is somehow the prevention of the surfacing of latent magical ability. Preventing him using his natural abilities (or as Vernon would put it "abnormalities") is surely a form of damage. Maybe Dudley's name was even down on the list for Hogwarts and Petunia persuaded Dumbledore not to send them a letter inviting him to the school... Maybe once the magical contract between Dumbledore and Petunia expires on Harry's 17th birthday Dudley will suddenly experience bouts of uncontrolled magic like the pre-Hogwarts children. I'm sure JKR has said someone in the series will discover magic late in life, could it be Dudley? Magic is "in the family" afterall. Dan From littlebitgal at att.net Thu Sep 15 15:03:21 2005 From: littlebitgal at att.net (Linda K.) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 11:03:21 -0400 Subject: Too much information? (wasRe: JKR's interviews about Snape and in general. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003701c5ba06$a072b7d0$779b4c0c@linda> No: HPFGUIDX 140213 First time I've written here and I hope I'm doing this right. Read the rules and found them a tad confusing. Potioncat: On a slightly different thread, ordinary readers don't know the same details that we do. Those of us on this list know off the tops of our heads how old charaters are, when their birthdays are, that Theodore's mother is dead, that the Prewetts were Molly's brothers, that Dean's father was a wizard who was killed by LV, that the bartender is DD's brother. Do we need to know any of that? We've certainly used some of that information in making our theories. Do you realise there are tons of fans who never read those interviews? It doesn't take anything away from the basic story if you don't know those things. Does it add to the story? Does it add to the fun? (new)LittleBitGal: Details are what make a story. I'm new to HP having just read all 6 books in August while sitting for 3 boys who had them. It was all those little extra details that kept me glued to the pages and got me to read 6 books in less than 2 weeks. It was all those little details that caused me to go out and buy books 1-4 (store didn't have 5 & 6) and re-read them again. Wanting to learn more about those details made me find this group and read for hours through the archives. As I read PS/SS for the 3rd time, I keep coming up with more details that I'd missed previously and then I come online and search various sites and readers boards for answers to my questions. I'm sure I'm not the only one to do this. I also find that reading your posts make me go back to the books and re-read sections to see exactly what you are talking about. Potioncat: The books themselves are full of little details about minor characters that make them seem perhaps more important than they are. Some of them have their 15 minutes of fame and fade away again. Does that muddle the story at all? Or does it provide a backdrop to help set the mood or mystery? Should the minor characters be less fleshed out? Did she give us too much about Neville's family in the books? How has it helped the story for us to know about Frank and Alice? Do we really need to know about Neville's uncle or that Aunt Marge's dog? (new)LittleBitGal: I keep hoping that details like Neville's parents, can be changed to a happier ending in the 7th book. We don't know that if LV and the DE's are finally defeated, that the spell on Neville's parents won't be broken and they could be normal again. Even if they are not cured, those details let us know why Neville is the way he is and why he tries so hard to become a stronger person. Minor characters help to carry a story and I think that JKR has done an excellent job of using those minor characters to keep this series of books continually interesting and grabbing. LittleBitGal - - - now going back into reading mode and staying quiet. From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Sep 15 14:55:36 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:55:36 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hearing from the Great Middle...well not really... References: Message-ID: <00b601c5ba05$88a69af0$8e7f400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 140214 vmonte: "Something that I find interesting in the Snape debates is that nothing JKR says in her interviews about Snape is ever considered as canon evidence. " For me, it's not that I think she ever lies, but just that "he's a deeply horrible person" doesn't tell me what actions he will or won't commit. I don't look for reasons behind Snape's actions that will make him a nice guy--I don't think he joined the DEs for not-so-bad reasons, or bullies Neville to make him strong, or anything like that. But I don't feel like I yet know all the things that were going on in HBP, particularly exactly what Snape's motivations were. I do think DD had good reason to trust Snape the way he did that we don't know yet. I do think that Snape killed DD, I just feel like I don't know the whole story yet. Sometimes it's only in retrospect JKR's comments become clear. When she's talking about people liking the character, especially, I think it sometimes seems like she's giving away more than she is. It's not like Snape being horrible isn't already there in the books, really. So I think when she says that she's not revealing what's going to happen so much as saying things that are important that we should already know. If PoA had come out in two books, for instance, I doubt she'd have been telling us in interviews halfway through that Peter was really a terrible person and Sirius was really nice. Snape was already deeply horrible in PS/SS, but there he was the one who hated Harry but didn't want him dead. He's more interesting because he doesn't always do the bad thing, even being the guy he is. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 16:21:52 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:21:52 -0000 Subject: JKR's interviews WAS: Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140215 > zgirnius: > I'm not so sure, and it contributes to my unwillingness to rely muchh > on interviews. I do seem to recall she has made comments about Draco > before HBP came out which were along the lines of the Snape comment I > refer to above. And yet (to me at least) Draco has become a much more > interesting and sympathetic character than before the book came out. Alla: Oh, good that you brought up Draco. She actually remained VERY consistent in her comments about him, no? In her July 16, Interview she again expresses the same sentiments about Draco as she was prior to HBP came out. And I think the book supports it. Now, I agree with you - Draco became more interesting character than I ever hoped him to be, but someone who tried to assasinate the Headmaster and in the process almost killed two students is as far from my picture of the "nice guy" as it can ever be. Draco did not have the stomach for killing , that is all. He MAYBE did his first choice which MAY lead him to the Light or not, IMO. So JKR is still perfectly consistent,w hen she expresses pusslement about the love for Draco, IMO. > > zgirnius: > Oh yes, I too am sure she does know where she is going with Snape. > Everything I have read her saying about him, though, seems to me to be > consistent with preserving the ambiguity and possibilities which (IMO) > she has so carefully written into the books. Alla: I agree - ambiguities about Snape related plot development , even about what Snape will turn out to be at the end - Loyal to the Light or not, BUT I disagree that she leaves much ambiguity about Snape character. > Marianne: > And they're not foolproof. In Part 3 of the recent TLC/Mugglenet > interview she says that the Potters were in hiding at the time of > Harry's christening. But, back in 2004 in the Edinburgh Book > Festival interview she said that, at that time, it "looked as if the > Potters would have to go into hiding..." > > Granted this example is probably not a big deal in the overall arc > of the saga. But it illustrates that some small details may have a > bit of wiggle room. Alla: Oh, sure SMALL details she can forget, get confused, change her mind later as she said herself. But her views on the characters? I seriously doubt it. You know, I keep asking this question and this is especially for those who do not believe the interviews,so please feel free to ignore it. :-) Could someone give me ONE example, where JKR lied to us in the interviews? Not forgot the numbers, but where plot or character development went contrary to what she said in the interview. Marianne: > However, I agree with you, Alla, that I don't think she is > deliberately trying to mask what she thinks of her characters' > traits in her interviews. Alla: Yep, thank you. :-) JMO of course, Alla. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 15 16:24:47 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:24:47 -0000 Subject: Hearing from the Great Middle...well not really... In-Reply-To: <00b601c5ba05$88a69af0$8e7f400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140216 vmonte wrote: > > "Something that I find interesting in the Snape debates is that > > nothing JKR says in her interviews about Snape is ever considered > > as canon evidence. " m replied: > For me, it's not that I think she ever lies, but just that "he's a > deeply horrible person" doesn't tell me what actions he will or > won't commit. > But I don't feel like I yet know all the things that were going on > in HBP, particularly exactly what Snape's motivations were. I do > think DD had good reason to trust Snape the way he did that we > don't know yet. > Sometimes it's only in retrospect JKR's comments become clear. > It's not like Snape being horrible isn't already there in the > books, really. So I think when she says that she's not revealing > what's going to happen so much as saying things that are important > that we should already know. SSSusan: I've been staying out of this thread because... well... for lots of reasons ;-) but I just had to pipe up and say I *love* what m. has said here, and I think m. is absolutely right. When JKR tells us Snape is "deeply horrible" and is "a sadistic teacher" and that we should "keep an eye on old Severus," it is certainly additional information on Snape. It is, as Betsy described it, "commentary." It could even be considered additional "clues." OTOH, the key question for me is what m. asked here: How do these juicy tidbits help us understand Snape, particularly in terms of *predicting his behavior* or *understanding his motivations*? The truth is, I think (and it's knee-jerk here, I'll admit -- I've not thought this through much), that they DON'T help us much in those two areas. Most of us seem to think Snape a right royal asshole at times, particularly with Neville, Harry & Hermione. Some of us think he's cruel and, yes, even sadistic at times. And many of us have turned to that quote of JKR's as backup for that position. ("See? JKR Herself said he's 'sadistic!'") But the trouble is, does knowing he's sadistic in her eyes, or does knowing that he bears watching help us to PREDICT what he will do from here on in or even to UNDERSTAND what has motivated him to this point? I would argue: No, it really does not. People have talked a lot around here since HBP about the most "straightforward read" of the book. And, huh, isn't it interesting that people with many different "bottom lines" re: Snape each think their particular read is the more straightforward one? I mean, I'm a DDM!Snaper myself, and I think there's oodles of evidence for it in HBP. Some of my best HP buddies are ESE!Snapers now, and they also firmly believe they've gotten there by taking HBP in its simplest presentation of the story and the evidence. Similarly, there are those who're OFH!Snapers, and I'm sure they think that's pretty straightforward, too. But we can't all be right about that, can we? ;-) JKR has deliberately drawn Severus Snape to be ambiguous. I'm *loving* looking over the results in the Snape poll and the responses in Lupinlore's "Hearing from the Great Middle" thread, because I think it's fascinating to hear people's reasoning for where they come down. But again, I think m. has really nailed it here. These comments from JKR, while certainly additional clues or evidence or backup for something and for some positions, just don't give us ENOUGH to say definitively "I *know* what is motivating Professor Snape" or "I *know* what he's going to do next." Yeah, JKR's words corroborate the surface Snape -- he's a nasty, snarky teacher -- but they don't illuminate the inner workings. And JKR has done it that way ON PURPOSE... don't you think?? Siriusly Snapey Susan From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 15 16:39:56 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:39:56 -0000 Subject: JKR's interviews WAS: Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140217 > Alla: > > Oh, good that you brought up Draco. She actually remained VERY > consistent in her comments about him, no? Potioncat: Yes, and he's still a toe-rag. But she seemed to write him from a more sympathetic view point which has really confused me. He seemed less "bad" after HBP than he did before. He's more conflicted than I expected. I don't understand how anyone could like him...but given the DELUSIONAL badge I wear, I'm hardly one to judge. > Alla: > Could someone give me ONE example, where JKR lied to us in the > interviews? Not forgot the numbers, but where plot or character > development went contrary to what she said in the interview. Potioncat: It would be interesting to really look at the interviews compared to which books had come out at the time and see what how things compare. While I don't know of any lies, there are two comments that really surprised me. In the Leaky Cauldron--Mugglenet interview in July, she expressed surprise that readers had the ships mixed up. She had given anvil sized hints. Well, I'm no shipper. Things worked out the way I expected (though wouldn't it be funny if they change in book 7?) But the few ship-threads I did read had good points on both sides. And it's hard to believe she didn't intend some confusion about the romances. (cough**Emma**cough) The other is a comment that she doesn't know where the idea for Vampire!Snape came from. Oh, pa--lease! While I don't mind that theory being nixed, it wasn't an off the wall idea. Potioncat who must admit not all these ideas are original to her, but has no idea who first said them. From lebiles at charter.net Thu Sep 15 16:53:57 2005 From: lebiles at charter.net (leb2323) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:53:57 -0000 Subject: JKR's interviews WAS: Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140218 > Potioncat wrote about Draco: > I don't understand how anyone could like him...but given > the DELUSIONAL badge I wear, I'm hardly one to judge. > leb: Ok -- I didn't see it in Inish Alley -- what does DELUSIONAL stand for? From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 15 17:32:42 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:32:42 -0000 Subject: JKR's interviews WAS: Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140219 > > Potioncat wrote about Draco: > > I don't understand how anyone could like him...but given > > the DELUSIONAL badge I wear, I'm hardly one to judge. > > > > leb: > Ok -- I didn't see it in Inish Alley -- what does DELUSIONAL stand for? Potioncat: Oops, there is a small chance that DELUSIONAL did not appear on this list. Although I thought it did. It was coined by Dungrollin: D.E.L.U.S.I.O.N.A.L. (Death Eaters Laughably Unsuspicious, Snape Is Obviously Not A Louse) Dungrollin From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 15 17:48:50 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:48:50 -0000 Subject: Missing 24 hours. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140220 I don't quite get this missing 24 hours stuff, isn't it possible that the baby Harry was trapped for many hours in the wreckage of his parent's house before he was rescued or even before any of the good guys knew that something was wrong. And when they did finally get Harry I'm sure Dumbledore would insist he be given a through medical check up before he went to the Dursley's. Eggplant From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 18:15:31 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 18:15:31 -0000 Subject: Invisibility cloak & MoM Security WAS:Snape informed Order? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140221 > >>Betsy Hp: > > I doubt it was obvious to the Death Eaters (and therefore > > Voldemort) that the Order was guarding the Prophecy. They were > > using Moody's invisibility cloak, after all. I imagine there > > was no knowledge of Order guards until Snake!Voldemort used his > > super snaky powers to spot the sleeping Arthur. > >>PJ: > You could be right about this but I'm not convinced. There are > just too many questions regarding this IMO. For instance, Harry > is said to be a rather small wizard and James's cloak is already > too short to cover Harry fully - Malfoy spots him entering the > train compartment in HBP by the flash of white sneaker. If these > cloaks can't properly hide a child, would full grown adult wizards > fare any better? Betsy Hp: The flash of sneaker occurs when Harry is scrambling up into the luggage racks, so I think that was more of a movement thing than a cloak size thing. Especially since Harry has no problems with the cloak under normal usage throughout HBP. The only time he runs into size problems is when he and Hermione and Ron are all trying to squeeze under the cloak. Plus, why would Moody have a cloak that didn't fit him? [Total aside, but I think undersized!Harry is more fanon than canon, IIRC. Doesn't Hermione mention how tall he's gotten while getting on the train in HBP? And I think Molly says something about Harry and Ron being of similar height.] > >>PJ: > Also, if we Muggles have motion sensors I should think that there > would be something more than guards at the MoM which wouldn't be > fooled by a Cloak (Sneakoscopes anyone? :)). Betsy Hp: There could well be (though security at the MoM seemed awfully lax to me). However, I'm betting the Aurors in the Order could either tell the guards how to get around such security measures, or simply turn it off. (With Fudge in charge, I'm betting security had some whopping big holes.) > >>PJ: > We already know that LV has spies in the MoM which could warn him > of the sudden interest in that section of the building. Else why > would LV send Nagini to the MoM if he had no suspicions that his > plan had gotten out? > Betsy Hp: I think that's what Lucius was doing when Harry and Arthur spotted him after Harry's trial. He was checking out the security for the DoM, and it seemed that there was none. (IIRC, there was actually an Order member at the door, under Moody's cloak.) I'd always assumed Voldemort came via Nagini to try and get the prophecy himself. And of course that went badly. But I didn't give it much thought, so I could well be wrong on that. Betsy Hp, who secretly thinks we Muggles are just plain better at somethings (like security) than Wizards. Their magic spoils them, IMO. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Sep 15 18:17:06 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 18:17:06 -0000 Subject: Hearing from the Great Middle...well not really... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140222 > vmonte wrote: > > > "Something that I find interesting in the Snape debates is that > > > nothing JKR says in her interviews about Snape is ever considered > > > as canon evidence. " > > m replied: > > For me, it's not that I think she ever lies, but just that "he's a > > deeply horrible person" doesn't tell me what actions he will or > > won't commit. Ceridwen: Neither does something like 'you read it, what do you think?' Throwing a question back as an answer is a sure sign of hiding something, if that person then doesn't start a discussion on the topic. m: > > > But I don't feel like I yet know all the things that were going on > > in HBP, particularly exactly what Snape's motivations were. I do > > think DD had good reason to trust Snape the way he did that we > > don't know yet. > > > Sometimes it's only in retrospect JKR's comments become clear. > > It's not like Snape being horrible isn't already there in the > > books, really. So I think when she says that she's not revealing > > what's going to happen so much as saying things that are important > > that we should already know. Ceridwen: Someone has been saying all along (pippin?) that perhaps JKR only answers questions about characters and situations that are consistent with the latest published HP book. I think that could be true. If so, then it would also explain why the comments can be clear in retrospect - we've moved beyond that particular 'year'. > > > SSSusan: > *(snip)* > OTOH, the key question for me is what m. asked here: How do these > juicy tidbits help us understand Snape, particularly in terms of > *predicting his behavior* or *understanding his motivations*? The > truth is, I think (and it's knee-jerk here, I'll admit -- I've not > thought this through much), that they DON'T help us much in those two > areas. *(snip)* > But the trouble is, does knowing he's sadistic in her eyes, or does > knowing that he bears watching help us to PREDICT what he will do > from here on in or even to UNDERSTAND what has motivated him to this > point? I would argue: No, it really does not. Ceridwen: I don't think they help us out at all. These are things we really ought to have noticed by now. Snape is mean, nasty, vengeful, spiteful and hate-filled. 'Who would want Snape to love them?' I don't know, but the one who asked that question went on to say that Snape had been loved at one time. I *assume* that whoever loved him would not have minded if he loved back, in whatever type of love it was (mother-love or friendship or romance or...). '...bears watching...' Watch him do what? Backflips? What we don't understand about Snape is how all these negative characteristics blend in him to make him what he is, and even more, what actions that blend will back up for him come book 7. There's nothing in this toward understanding the character. SSSusan: > I mean, I'm a DDM!Snaper myself, and I think there's oodles of > evidence for it in HBP. Some of my best HP buddies are ESE!Snapers > now, and they also firmly believe they've gotten there by taking HBP > in its simplest presentation of the story and the evidence. > Similarly, there are those who're OFH!Snapers, and I'm sure they > think that's pretty straightforward, too. Ceridwen: I think, after all of this, ESE! and ESG! just can't work as tags. Alla, I think, said she thinks Snape is evil, just going by what she's seen of his actions all along. And, I can see acknowledging that someone who browbeats children, etc. is 'evil'. No one, I think, doubts that he's evil in the horrible man sort of way if no other. That has no bearing on whether he's on LV's side or DD's side. He'll never be ESG! even if he rides Harry into the fray piggyback using his own body as a shield so Harry can get right on top of Voldemort. His Creatrix has said he's a horrible man. And she ought to know. All of that to say that I like the alternate DDM! (Dumbledore's Man!) title a pinch better, though I'm not so oblivious that I don't understand the ESE! and ESG! tags. I just can't find a good alternative to ESE! other than LVM! And that may be stretching things too far, because someone's already mentioned that probably the only DE who would stand for LV at the crucial end would be Bellatrix, no matter how they feel about the issues. > SSSusan: > *(snip) > But again, I think m. has really nailed it here. These comments from > JKR, while certainly additional clues or evidence or backup for > something and for some positions, just don't give us ENOUGH to say > definitively "I *know* what is motivating Professor Snape" or "I > *know* what he's going to do next." Ceridwen: Yes! SisterM does have a way of getting it right out there, doesn't she? And, this is why I, too, don't take what is said in interviews as absolute. I do admit everything JKR has stated about Snape. I can see it in canon. But she never goes beyond what we're able to *see* in a straightforward reading. Spinner's End should have made this all much clearer, yet it only served to muddy the waters. And interviews only keep the water muddy. > SSSusan: > Yeah, JKR's words corroborate the surface Snape -- he's a nasty, > snarky teacher -- but they don't illuminate the inner workings. And > JKR has done it that way ON PURPOSE... don't you think?? Ceridwen: Absolutely. The Christmas Present analogy is so fitting. Pippin again? Or Potioncat? And here we sit, with no one in the room but us, picking up packages and shaking them to try and guess what's inside. Ceridwen. From Sherry at PebTech.net Thu Sep 15 18:35:51 2005 From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 18:35:51 -0000 Subject: Hearing from the Great Middle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140223 Lupinlore's post made me sit down and try to organize(!) my thinking. I've read lots of fascinating and insightful analysis of Snape's position, and I admire the discussion of many members besides those I quote here! Lupinlore: 2/3 of us are reluctant to come down on either side, either because we want to reserve judgment or because we think Snape will not, in the end, be clearly on one side or the other. Amontillada: I voted that I don't know WHICH side Snape is on! I've read closely reasoned arguments for both ESE and ESG Snape, but I think we've seen him do too many things that don't fall neatly into either category. Lupinlore: I suspect about half of the mystery has been deliberately created by the author, and the other half arises from circumstances that JKR thinks are perfectly straightforward, but which don't appear so to the fandom. Amontillada: Because we overanalyze them, or because JKR is waiting to explain them in HP7, as Agatha Christie does in the last chapter of her mystery novels, making readers say "Of course! Why didn't I see that?" JKR won't have the space available to explain EVERY move Snape's made, so I can predict one thing: we'll be debating for a long time just which actions fall into which category. In Message #140128, Allie illustrated how Snape could be interpreted as ESE, ESG, or OFH. (Thank you, Allie for telling us that OFG stands for Out For Himself--for some reason, I hadn't found that one in the Inish Alley table.) Good arguments, based on canon, can be made in several directions; see 140128 for specif illustrations. If I had to pick a category right now, I lean toward OFH - with a twist. Call it OFHI: Out for Himself Intellectually. At heart, Snape wants to increase his own knowledge of magic--both the Dark Arts and its opposite (for lack of a better term, the Light Skills). Here's the rough sequence of events: 1. Harry's glimpses in OoP 26 indicate that Snape grew up in a verbally abusive family, and was a lonely youth. It would be consistent with the canon picture of his intellect if he'd turned to books and knowledge as a haven, in which he discovered his thirst for knowledge. 2. He delved into BOTH Dark and Light magic even before he finished school at Hogwarts. Sirius describes Snape as already "a little oddball who was up to his eyes in the Dark Arts" (OoP 29). (Where did he learn about the Dark Arts? From his mother's family library?) 3. Soon after leaving Hogwarts, Snape joined LV's forces, which he saw as a way to learn more about the Dark Arts. With his naivet? and intellectual conceit he believed he could seem to follow LV, without truly committing himself. He found out the hard way what LV demanded that his followers do to prove their loyalty. 4. This point was when he realized that he had gotten in over his head, and turned for help to DD, who in turn recruited him as a double agent. Snape's proximity to LV and his intellectual gifts gave him unique qualifications for this role. He had begun to admit intellectually just HOW vicious LV's methods really were, but James and Lily's deaths forced him to admit it _emotionally_ as well. As I see it, Snape has been trying to navigate an independent path throughout the series, weaving back and forth between Dark and Light without truly committing himself to either side. At the end of HBP, he appears to have dropped all pretenses and aligned himself with LV. But I still think that his FINAL commitment has yet to be made, and we'll see it in HP7. I can't begin to predict which way he'll finally turn! zgirnius: Despite having something at least vaguely resembling a conscience, he remains a nasty, unpleasant, bitter person, hence the interactions with his students [especially Harry and Neville] that we see throughout the books. Amontillada: Many members of the list have given very well-phrased, succinct descriptions of Snape's character, so this is far from the only fine one. Even if he takes Harry's side in the end, it won't mean that he's a total Nice Guy after all. Completely apart from his allegiance in the war with LV, he has many deep personal flaws, which can be blamed largely on his pursuing knowledge at the expense of emotion and every other aspect of human development. Turning away from LV's side, if he does that, won't transform him into a more likeable person. Amontillada From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 18:50:42 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 11:50:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Depth? Things to take on their face value (Was: Sirius' loyalty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050915185042.87571.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140224 --- vmonte wrote: > I'm not sure why it's so hard for people to take what Sirius says > at > face value. The poor man's been sitting in Azkaban over a decade > feeling bad about his part in his best friend's death. He made > Peter the secret keeper, and he feels bad about it. Damn right he feels bad about it. And so he should. The memory of it should remind him during OOTP that he should perhaps be a little less dogmatic in his convictions about people because his own judgement was something less than, shall we say, stellar. But his comments about Regulus in OOTP indicate that this might be another person he misjudged - especially since it looks pretty clear that Regulus is RAB. I don't doubt that Sirius was sincere in all his actions. So what? Lucius Malfoy is a sincere bigot. Sincerity can be overrated. Magda (back after a week of intense workload) __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 18:51:05 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 18:51:05 -0000 Subject: Hearing from the Great Middle...well not really... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140225 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > Ceridwen: > I think, after all of this, ESE! and ESG! just can't work as tags. > Alla, I think, said she thinks Snape is evil, just going by what > she's seen of his actions all along. And, I can see acknowledging > that someone who browbeats children, etc. is 'evil'. No one, I > think, doubts that he's evil in the horrible man sort of way if no > other. Actually, it's been argued any number of times, including up this thread, that the "horrible man" descriptor is actually NOT accurate for Snape as he's presented to us in the books. So yes, there are people who do not think he's evil in that sort of way. [Given a consistent string of interview comments--a consistent one--I suspect they boggle JKR a bit.] > That has no bearing on whether he's on LV's side or DD's > side. This is an assumption that may be true, or it may not be true. It may be that Snape's behavior towards the students and his other actions are operating on completely different principles, and one has no implications for the other. But that's an assumption that may not be true, particularly in a fictional world. The fact that Snape is a nasty horrible man to children may be a key insight into his character, and there may well be continuity between that aspect of his character and what side he's on. I'm reminded of a post of Lupinlore's, a while back, wherein the opinion that JKR generally gives the nice guys a pass was set forward. I don't see that as having been too invalidated by events, although it was pre-HBP. So it's open as to whether her ultimate treatment of Snape will conform to that model, or make a bold statement in not following it. Readers see patterns where they want to, after all. > Ceridwen: > I do admit everything JKR has stated about Snape. I can see it in > canon. But she never goes beyond what we're able to *see* in a > straightforward reading. It's also a guess that we're going to get much more, or material contradictory to, what we are able to see in a straightforward reading. It's an assumption I think most of us would like to see validated, but it's still an assumption. The fandom has created the model that canon is incredibly intricate and twisted, but we're still waiting for validation of that in many areas. Try going through Inish Alley some time, and seeing how many theories have been validated, and how many haven't been invalidated, but just don't look so hot anymore. -Nora sez: sic transit gloria mundi From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 19:22:08 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:22:08 -0000 Subject: Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty (Re: Hearing from the Great Middle) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140226 vmonte wrote: > Ok, I see what you're saying. I'll check out Carol's post. Do you both think that the position was cursed during the penseive memory that Harry witnessed where it looked like Tom was reaching for his wand? Carol responds: To answer your question, yes, I believe that the DADA position was cursed (not just jinxed) when Tom Riddle waved his wand in DD's Pensieve memory. If you need a link to my original DADA curse post (which takes that idea for granted), it's http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137961 It spawned quite a long discussion and a few additional threads. Basically, I believe that the Unbreakable Vow is the manifestation of the DADA curse for Snape just as Voldie inside the turban was its manifestation for Quirrell (whose death was inevitable from the moment he allowed Voldemort to possess him). Sensible Lupin in PoA uncharacteristically forgets his potion on a full moon night, an action which to me can only be explained by the DADA curse (which simultaneously benefits Voldemort by releasing his "servant," Wormtail). Ever-cautious (and self-preserving) Snape in HBP uncharacteristically binds himself by a vow that could lead to his own death, again explainable (to me) only by the DADA curse. The message I linked you to gives the full argument in its original version. If you follow the thread, you can see how the group members who like the idea helped me work out some of the flaws in the concept. My last post on the subject (which doesn't link to the original thread) is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/138333 I think the grim fates of many of the DADA teachers speak for themselves regarding the sinister nature of the curse (no mere jinx) on the position, with good and bad alike falling to the malice of Voldemort. I also believe, however, that evil intentions/actions in the Potterverse often bring about unintended good (LV hoist with his own petard at GH being the prime example) and that a deeply remorseful Snape will play a key role in bringing Voldemort down. As JKR herself has said, "There's more to Snape than meets the eye," and she implies elsewhere that he has a key role to play in Book 7, which I take to mean that he'll somehow help to bring Voldemort down, if only by teaching Harry that vengeance is folly. Carol, who believes that JKR's remark about "whoever asked that question" finding the answer in Book 7 relates to Snape's redemption and not to his being in love From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Sep 15 19:24:21 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:24:21 -0000 Subject: Keep Harry Horcrux Free Challenge! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140227 > Saraquel: > OK, I'm coming out fighting ? here's the list in no particular > order, some of them have already had counter-arguments against them, > but not all. Please feel free to either come up with a counter > argument, or add to the list! > > 1 )Evidence from Chamber of Secrets. > The Horcrux in the diary fed off Ginny in order to bring itself to > life. If Harry was a Horcrux, intentional or not, that piece of soul > would have been really trying to suck the life out of him and bring > itself to life, particularly as Voldemort lost his body in the > attempt. Although, we can see dark influences in Harry's nature ? > the attempts at unforgivable curses for instance ? it doesn't seem > to me that he has had to fight off the attempts of a Horcrux to > bring itself to life. Plus, Harry was only a baby when this event > occurred so absolutely helpless. Ceridwen: I don't think it's a given that TR would have gone for Harry instead of Ginny. He'd already softened her up and switching would have meant more work for him. Also, Harry was fighting him, Ginny was laying on the floor obligingly dying for him. And, I think that no matter which incarnation we'll come across of LV, he'll still think that women are there for only one thing - to give life and then die. I do think it affected him greatly that his mother died after giving birth to him. Of course, he thought of the act contemptuously. But I believe it colored his thoughts about women, and the weak (dying people, sick people, are notoriously weak). So, I think it was TR's own POV in part, that made him stick with Ginny. > Sarquel: > 2)Why does Voldmort need to use legilimency? > If Harry was a Horcrux, embodied Voldemort wouldn't need to access > Harry's mind through legilimancy, the Horcrux would presumably do it > for him and Voldemort would know simply by being aware of that part > of his soul. If Voldemort suspected that Harry was a Horcurx, which > surely he must have thought about, he would have made efforts to re- > connect with that part of himself and not IMO be so dismissive of > Harry and so quick to AK him at the Ministry, knowing that he was > AKing his own soul. Ceridwen: For this, and for number 1 as well, Dumbledore said that Voldemort doesn't feel what is going on with his horcruxes. He didn't know about the diary horcrux until he was told. The soul pieces he's secreted into various objects are torn wholly away and are no longer in contact with him. Given all of the wards, etc. in place at Hogwarts, and the fact that usually, one must have eye contact to use Legilimency, it's possible that a soul-piece facilitates, though doesn't negate the use for, Legilimency, making it possible to do it from a distance. Now that I've supported Horcrux!Harry('s scar), I'll say that I think *anything* of Voldemort in Harry would facilitate the connection. Skin or blood, as you so squickily suggested; the powers they share; a spell/charm/hex we don't yet know about from GH... Anything. It doesn't have to be a soul-piece. So, IMO, the mind bond is a non- starter for either side. > > 3)Dumbledore in CoS > Uk Ed COS p245 > "Unless I'm much mistaken, he transferred some of his own powers to > you the night he gave you that scar. Not something he intended to > do, I'm sure " > "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" Harry said thunderstruck. > "It certainly seems so." > DD seems to think that what was transferred to Harry was Voldemort's > *powers* not a bit of his soul. Ceridwen: That's only if one agrees that powers are not in the soul. I'm not convinced one way or another at this point, there's too much to think about before reaching that interesting puzzle. Right now, I would agree with you that powers are more of the physical or physiological than the soul or spirit. But I think that, to have powers, one needs *all* parts, body, soul and spirit. And, powers aside, the *power* to power the powers may reside in a different portion of the tri- person. Powers, magic, in the flesh/blood/brain, energy to activate and sustain those powers maybe in the soul or spirit. Could be why there are Squibs. They lack either the magic, or the power source, so can't bring the two together... (Going off on a tangent here, could the power source reside in the heart? If someone who is not magical does perform magic in book 7, could it be because they have found their heart/courage in a desperate situation, like mothers who heave cars off their kids? And, if being 'heartsick' over a lost or oblivious love can diminish one's magic, then that would be a heart effect, too) > Sarquel: > 4)Wizards and Muggles > This one is my favourite and I think the most difficult to counter. > Presuming that both wizards and muggles both have souls - there is > no cannon evidence to support this, but I feel reasonably confident > that it is so. The difference between muggles and witches (let's > have gender balances here) is their magical ability ? their powers. > It therefore seems to me that magical powers are a separate entity > to the soul. Hence making Harry a horcrux would not necessarily > endow him with Voldemort's powers. So if you then argue that some > powers were also transferred when Harry was made a horcrux ? I > simply reply, why bother with the soul bit ? why not just leave it > at powers? Ceridwen: Or, as with Squibs, do Muggles lack only *one* component, magic or power source, and when someone with one marries and has a child with someone who has the other, you get a Muggle-born witch or wizard? (Yes, I'm having fun on my tangent. From what I understand, they're a lot like roller coasters, at least if you draw them on paper) My whole uncertainty as to the Horcrux!Harry('s scar) idea is that, with all the magic and destruction flying around in GH that night, we do know that Harry got some powers unintentionally. I do think it's possible he *could have* also gotten the torn piece of soul that came from his father's or his mother's death. I think, under those circumstances, I can't rule it out. But, since it would have been accidental, it also wouldn't be properly called a horcrux, and since there was no ritual enacted, or one which may have been started (Valky?) was never properly closed... Another tangent. Even if Harry didn't get a soul piece, *if* a ritual had been started, the connection between Voldemort and Harry would not have been closed, since (I'm assuming) closed the ritual. In fact, part of a ritual horcrux making could involve the connection between the bearer of the soul-piece and the object which would become the new bearer. Instructing the connection to commence on the object that took something of the bearer... That ritual's power would also have been ricocheting around the place, and might have followed a soul piece, or the powers, as they went into Harry... Anyway, no matter what happened, Voldemort didn't know about Harry getting duplicates (assuming again, since Voldemort still has these powers) of his powers, he didn't know about the connection, and *if* Harry got a soul piece, he didn't know that, either. > Sarquel: > 5) Dumbledore in HBP > UK Ed p473 > "I am sure that he was intending to make his final Horcrux with your > death. As we know, he failed." I really think DD would have thought > about the accidental scenario. Ceridwen: Yes. I do believe this. Dumbledore knows a lot, more than we do. He would have considered every option, I'm sure. Though, he doesn't say that accidents can't happen, and he doesn't say that Harry is or isn't a horcrux. Obviously, he didn't make a horcrux with Harry's death, Harry isn't dead. He did have at least one soul piece torn, from killing James. Did it stay attatched to the original soul? Though, even if Dumbledore didn't address the unspoken possibilities, I do think he's just being as simple and straightforward as possible, so he won't burden Harry with all sorts of what-ifs and such that have no bearing on the situation. > Saraquel: > Plus 3 courtesy of Jen in post 140041 > 6) Even though I personally love the idea Harry is gifted in > destroying the Horcruxes in a way DD is not, the diary did not have > any curses upon it the way the ring did. So we can't know that for > sure yet. Ceridwen: True. Though we don't know if the diary had curses that were either switched off because the memory or soul part was active and connected to a being, or if Harry just magically got through them the way the DEs got up the tower stairs despite the Order being kept out. Still, we don't know. And, even if Harry has some affinity for destroying LV's horcruxes, it may not necessarily come from a soul part, but from the powers he and LV share, or something else we don't know about yet. (Though, isn't it getting a little late to have things we don't know about yet?) > Sarquel channeling Jen: > 7) Harry did not feel any affinity at all for the locket at 12 GP, > if indeed it is a Horcrux, nor could he open it, same as the others > present. Ceridwen: But, even Voldemort has no actual connection to his horcruxes, so why should any of the horcrux soul pieces feel connected to any of the others? And, did he really try to open it, or just give it a brief go? The diary, IMO, was meant to be opened and explored. The locket isn't. What it will take to open it, if it's a suspected horcrux in book 7, even if it turns out to be a horcrux (probably is), might be a bit more, the right spell, perhaps, than the diary. And, the diary didn't have to be opened to be destroyed. > Saraquel channeling Jen: > 8) In the cave, DD said: "I think we must resign ourselves to the > fact that they [Inferi] will, at some point, realize we're not Lord > Voldemort." (chap. 26, p. 564) And they do!! I know this is pitiful > little evidence, but I think if Harry is somehow recognized to have > part of Voldemort in him, the Inferi would not bother him. Ceridwen: But, if Harry doesn't know/speak the right words, they may attack even if they recognize part of Voldemort in him. Like the Raspberry Jam codeword, or, funnier, Mollywobbles. JKR has a habit of bringing things back from side roads. For Inferi, for all the horcruxes, whether Harry has part of Voldemort's soul or something else recognizeable from him, he may still have to use the 'password'. And I'll bet it's in Parseltongue, just like the entrance to the CoS. > Sarquel: > >Borthergib wrote: > >What if Voldemort had succeeded in making Harry a Horcrux that > >night at GH. But the love flowing through him from his mother's > >sacrifice had violently expelled the Horcrux. This left the > >lightning shaped scar (as with the ring) and destroyed GH as well > >as Voldemort. Harry would possess many of Voldemort's powers having > >once been touched by Voldemort's soul, but would not technically be > >a Horcrux any longer!! > > Yes Brothergib, this has promise! It had occurred to me that the > scar might represent something coming *out* of Harry, rather than > something going in. I was toying with an idea that Voldemort was > planning to make Harry into a Horcrux at GH, the ultimate > humiliation for Harry ? to in effect be ruled by Voldemort's soul > from babyhood. But then that wouldn't square with him wanting to > use Harry's murder to do it ? I ended up with a Horcrux!Inferi Ceridwen: Or, it could be something of Harry that impacts Voldemort. Bone, blood, skin, soul, love, curiosity, something that goes with the two- way connection between them now. Since we don't know what went on at GH, how long Voldemort kept his body before succumbing, yadda-yadda, we can't say. And this may be way too speculative. But, I do think about the light coming out of the lightning bolt 'P'-for-Potter in the films (note to list elves: the iron is heating as I type), and JKR's involvement with the films, and her approval of what is done, and I can see something coming out of the scar that inspired the shape of those initials, with her approval, and maybe even a smirk because it's a clue. *shrug* Off to iron my hands. Ceridwen. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Sep 15 19:38:03 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:38:03 -0000 Subject: Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty (Re: Hearing from the Great Middle) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140228 Carol: *(snip)* > I think the grim fates of many of the DADA teachers speak for > themselves regarding the sinister nature of the curse (no mere jinx) > on the position, with good and bad alike falling to the malice of > Voldemort. > > I also believe, however, that evil intentions/actions in the > Potterverse often bring about unintended good (LV hoist with his own > petard at GH being the prime example) and that a deeply remorseful > Snape will play a key role in bringing Voldemort down. As JKR herself > has said, "There's more to Snape than meets the eye," and she implies > elsewhere that he has a key role to play in Book 7, which I take to > mean that he'll somehow help to bring Voldemort down, if only by > teaching Harry that vengeance is folly. Ceridwen: I followed that thread, and thought about it some. And, I wonder now, if the curse wasn't placed on the position so that, in the end, the DADA teacher would be Dumbledore's downfall? This isn't fully fleshed out. It just seems the sort of vindictive thing Voldemort would do. No, he won't give Tom the position, wouldn't even dream of it? Then give it to someone who'll kill him. Which may be why Snape was supposed to get the position to begin with? Did Voldemort intend Snape to do it after all, from the beginning of Snape's mission at the school? Would the curse only be broken by Dumbledore's death? Does this make any sense? I feel like saying, 'Tune in next week...' Ceridwen. From dossett at lds.net Thu Sep 15 19:28:19 2005 From: dossett at lds.net (rtbthw_mom) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:28:19 -0000 Subject: Horcrux Harry? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140229 Thank you so much, Darqali, for your recent post on the Harry/Horcrux issue. I have been opposed to this theory for a long time, but it has taken me a while to get my thoughts in order, and your post helped! To me, the answer is obvious: Harry is certainly *not* an intended horcrux: he was supposed to be the death that allowed an horcrux to be made! If Harry's dead, then what's holding the piece of soul? However, even beyond this reasoning (?) DD tells Harry that he thinks it's possible that the last horcrux is in Nagini. If Harry was *supposed* to be the last horcrux, and that step failed, then we can see why Nagini would need to be that last horcrux. IOW, the sixth horcrux was never created at Godric's Hollow, because LV turned into Vapormort and couldn't use a wand to create that last horcrux. So he does it with Frank Bryce's death, there in the Riddle House (beginning of GOF) and makes Nagini the horcrux. This also, BTW, gives LV an extra horcrux since it seems pretty clear that by GOF he's heard about the Diary Horcrux being destroyed in CoS. I agree, at least in theory, with Darqali, that somebody else was at GH to retrieve the horcrux object. Or, maybe, the object is still there! But I don't believe that Harry was intended to be the last Horcrux - only the "sacrifice" that would enable the horcrux to be made. I am still open as to him being an unintended horcrux - although it will take some persuadin' to get me there! ;) All IMO, of course. Thanks - Pat From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 21:53:07 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:53:07 -0000 Subject: Snape/Harry coincidence? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140230 We tend to speak of the books as being written from Harry's POV, but I noticed on a recent rereading of SS/PS that the narrator deviates from Harry's POV on several occasions (in addition to the entire first chapter), for example, to report that Harry is asleep or to describe a dream that Harry doesn't remember, or to show Ron's and Hermione's actions while Harry is being cursed by Quirrell and countercursed by Snape, who is trying (straightforward reading here) to save him. On another occasion in the same book, Harry is described from the outside (not seeing himself in a mirror--the narrator is briefly stepping outside Harry's POV). Oddly, the wording strikes me as virtually identical to a description of Snape in GoF. Harry has decided to take his first really courageous and selfless action, entering the forbidden corridor to retrieve the Sorceror's (Philosopher's) Stone: "Well, that's it, then, isn't it?" Harry said. The other two stared at him. His face was pale and his eyes were glittering. "I'm going out of here tonight and I'm going to try and get to the stone first." "You're mad!" said Ron. "You can't!" said Hermione. "After what McGonagall and Snape have said? You'll be expelled!" "SO WHAT?" Harry shouted. "Don't you understand? If Snape gets the stone, Voldemort's coming back! . . . . There won't be any Hogwarts to be expelled from! . . . I'm going through that trapdoor tonight and nothing you two can say can stop me! Voldemort killed my parents, remember?" (SS Am. ed. 270) Despite his error in thinking that it's Snape who has the stone, there can be no mistaking Harry's motivation or his courage. He's risking death (as well as expulsion) to save Hogwarts. But we are not given his thoughts here. The narrator has deviated from the normal POV (Harry's) to describe Harry as Ron and Hermione see him. His pale skin and glittering eyes reveal an almost fanatical determination to do the right thing "at great personal risk" (to borrow DD's description of Snape as a spy in VW1). Compare this passage from GoF: "Severus," said Dumbledore, turning to Snape, "you know what I must ask you to do. If you are ready. . . . If you are prepared. . . ." "I am," said Snape. He looked slightly paler than usual, and his cold, black eyes glittered strangely. "Then good luck," said Dumbledore, and he watched, with a trace of apprehension on his face, as Snape swept wordlessly after Sirius. (GoF Am. ed. 713). The "cold" eyes reflect Harry's perspective, as does "strangely." Everything else (including Dumbledore's apprehension, which is confirmed by his long silence) is straightforward narration. Snape, who is always pale (or sallow) is paler than usual and his eyes are glittering, just like Harry's in the SS/PS passage. In fact, the sentence from the earlier book could be substituted verbatim with no change in the meaning (except to remove the trace of subjectivity). We know that Snape is being sent to Voldemort, that even if he's on LV's side (as he claims to be in "Spinner's End"), he's going into great danger. He has prepared his excuses; he has probably chosen precisely which memories he will allow Voldemort to see. Only his wits and his skill as an Occlumens lie between him and death. Various readers have noticed the similarity between Harry's feeling of hatred and repulsion as he feeds Dumbledore the poisoned memory in HBP and Snape's look of hatred and revulsion as he casts the spell that knock Dumbledore from the tower at the end of the same book. The similarity between those passages seems unlikely to be coincidental. Could the SS/PS and GoF passages I've quoted also be deliberately coincidental, the later recalling the earlier to create a parallel between Harry and Snape? Why else would JKR have the narrator deviate from the normal POV to describe SS/PS Harry from the outside and then repeat virtually the same description for a character Harry hates three books later? I suggest that it's because Snape, like Harry, is performing an act of selfless courage in opposition to Voldemort. His action cannot in itself save Hogwarts or Harry, but it's a vital step in Dumbledore's plan to save the WW. Whatever the explanation for HBP Snape, the pale face and glittering eyes suggest an almost fanatical willingness to risk death for Dumbledore's cause, exactly like Harry preparing to enter the corridor in SS/PS. Carol, who thought this would be a two-paragraph post From msbeadsley at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 22:22:34 2005 From: msbeadsley at yahoo.com (msbeadsley) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:22:34 -0000 Subject: Keep Harry Horcrux Free Challenge! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140231 One more thing and I'm done here, I promise. To backtrack a bit: > Sandy countered: > The ability to talk to snakes is IMO the most obvious thing (besides > the scar) that Harry got from Voldemort. So the fragment of Voldie's > soul in the diary had it, and so does Harry. How's that for a > counter? > Saraquel replies: > A touch of my wand to my hat to you Sandy, BUT, Riddle had created > himself a body *before* he invited the Basilisk to the party and IMO > a wizards powers probably reside in their bodies. I have already Not only did TMR have the gift of parseltongue after he'd created himself a body, but he had it *when he was possessing Ginny*, before he had a body... so the ability *had* to be part of the soul piece in the horcrux diary. Didn't it? (Unless we want to imagine that TMR had been slowly materializing in the Chamber all year...not likely, as he was very much in the diary while Harry had it in possession.) Sandy aka msbeadsley, knowing this has come up before and going off to close her ears in the oven door From msbeadsley at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 22:45:57 2005 From: msbeadsley at yahoo.com (msbeadsley) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:45:57 -0000 Subject: That darn Prophecy again.. Re: Thin air/Choices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140232 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Voldemort kills Lily, activating the ancient love magic. Voldemort > AKs Harry. The AK bursts from Harry's head, leaving a jagged scar Am I missing something, or is there a problem with this in that the incidental Priori Incantatem in the graveyard didn't show Voldemort's wand having done anything past Lily's death? Are you inferring that it didn't show because it didn't succeed? I have to say regretfully that I have never liked this notion; within this scenario, the wand did cast the spell, regardless of the result or lack of one. Something should have appeared. Shouldn't it? Sandy aka msbeadsley From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 22:55:47 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:55:47 -0000 Subject: JKR's interviews WAS: Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140233 > >>Alla: > > Oh, good that you brought up Draco. She actually remained VERY > > consistent in her comments about him, no? > Potioncat: > Yes, and he's still a toe-rag. But she seemed to write him from a > more sympathetic view point which has really confused me. He > seemed less "bad" after HBP than he did before. He's more > conflicted than I expected. > Betsy Hp: Exactly! I was *thrilled* with HBP because it took Draco in a direction I'd hoped he would go, one I thought the books hinted at, and one which JKR's interviews cast doubt upon. Because, though JKR may have maintained interview consistency, her *book* consistency changed. Her sympathy for Draco became *much* more overt. Even Harry felt pity for Draco by book end. To run with your excellent "Christmas Present" analogy, Potioncat, this was one present I loved opening. I've read so very many rants by Draco fans, convinced JKR must really hate the poor boy, mostly based on JKR's interviews. And my feeling was, if we see something good in Draco, JKR must as well because she created him. Ignore the interviews, look at his treatment in the books and the shadow of a possibly good boy (Dumbledore's innocent) is evident. By the end of HBP it's arrived (and here's hoping it lasts!). > >>Alla: > OK, so out of curiousity, do you think that the direction JKR will > go with Snape character will be contrary to what she says about > him? I mean, do you think that she is not portraying "deeply > horrible person", but a "nice guy"? > Betsy Hp: In a nut shell? Yes. Snape will end the books on the side of the angels (the definition of a "nice guy" for me). Doesn't mean JKR lied, so much as she supported Harry's viewpoint at that time. (Whoever came up with that theory, I like it. It makes a lot of sense.) No, the interviews are, at best, entertaining, and at worst misleading (yeah, I said it!). And frankly, ignoring them has yet to lead me astray. (Book 7, will of course, be the proving ground. Blood will run, I'm sure.) Betsy Hp From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 23:01:31 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:01:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Spinner's End--further evidence for DDsMan!Snape?? In-Reply-To: <32025905091118151804f128@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20050915230132.83575.qmail@web53113.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140234 > 'There was a pause and then Snape said quietly, "Ah . . . Aunt > Bellatrix has > been teaching you Occlumency, I see. What thoughts are you trying > to conceal from your master, Draco?"' -HBP, Chapter 15 > > Sarah A moment for a peeve of mine. Did anyone else find that one of the most unbelievable parts of the book? Occlumency - this obscure but useful branch of magic that requires you to control your emotions to be successful at it - and nuttier-than-a-Ziplock-baggie-of-trail-mix Aunt Bellatrix knows how to do it? Magda (still shaking her head at that one) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 23:18:14 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 23:18:14 -0000 Subject: Missing 24 hours. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140235 eggplant: I don't quite get this missing 24 hours stuff, isn't it possible that the baby Harry was trapped for many hours in the wreckage of his parent's house before he was rescued or even before any of the good guys knew that something was wrong. And when they did finally get Harry I'm sure Dumbledore would insist he be given a through medical check up before he went to the Dursley's. Amiable Dorsai: We know the timing of very little that happened that day, but we know that the Wizarding World knew something was up by the morning of the night Voldy had his little mishap. Here are a few quotes from "Sorcerer's Stone": "When Mr. and Mrs. Dursley woke up on the dull, gray Tuesday our story starts, there was nothing about the cloudy sky outside to suggest that strange and mysterious things would soon be happening all over the country. Mr. Dursley hummed as he picked out his most boring tie for work, and Mrs. Dursley gossiped away happily as she wrestled a screaming Dudley into his high chair. None of them noticed a large, tawny owl flutter past the window. At half past eight, Mr. Dursley picked up his briefcase, pecked Mrs. Dursley on the cheek, and tried to kiss Dudley good-bye but missed, because Dudley was now having a tantrum and throwing his cereal at the walls. "Little tyke," chortled Mr. Dursley as he left the house. He got into his car and backed out of number four's drive. It was on the corner of the street that he noticed the first sign of something peculiar -- a cat reading a map. For a second, Mr. Dursley didn't realize what he had seen -- then he jerked his head around to look again. There was a tabby cat standing on the corner of Privet Drive, but there wasn't a map in sight." Vernon encounters people wearing "funny clothes" gossiping on his way to work that morning. Owls zoom back and forth all morning, though Vernon does not notice them. When he goes out for lunch, he hears a snippet of conversation that fills him with dread: "The Potters, that's right, that's what I heard yes, their son, Harry." So by daylight that morning, the word was out that something had happened. By lunchtime, rumors were swirling around young Harry Potter. So where was Harry? McGonagall was apparently expecting something to happen at Lily's sisters house since early that morning, but no one else turns up at Privet Drive until: "Mr. Dursley might have been drifting into an uneasy sleep, but the cat on the wall outside was showing no sign of sleepiness. It was sitting as still as a statue, its eyes fixed unblinkingly on the far corner of Privet Drive. It didn't so much as quiver when a car door slammed on the next street, nor when two owls swooped overhead. In fact, it was nearly midnight before the cat moved at all. A man appeared on the corner the cat had been watching, appeared so suddenly and silently you'd have thought he'd just popped out of the ground. The cat's tail twitched and its eyes narrowed." So Dumbledore shows up quite long after the Potter's were killed--in fact, judging by Harry's memories in PoA, they were killed before they turned in the night before. The Potters died late Monday night, or very early Tuesday morning. Dumbledore appears at Privet Drive just before midnight Tuesday. Hence, the 24 hour figure. Dumbledore and McGonagall chat for several minutes, then Hagrid shows up on a flying motorcycle that he borrowed from Sirius Black: "No problems, were there?" "No, sir -- house was almost destroyed, but I got him out all right before the Muggles started swarmin' around. He fell asleep as we was flyin' over Bristol." It doesn't sound like Harry was hard to retrieve. It also sounds like--but we can't be certain--that Hagrid came straight to Privet Drive after picking up Harry. Now we don't know how fast Sirius' motorbike was, but the UK isn't that big--at any reasonable speed, Hagrid should have been able to get from wherever Godric's Hollow is to Surrey in a lot less than 24 hours. So where were Hagrid and Harry all that time? Where was Dumbledore? How did McGonagall know to stake out Privet Drive? Myself, I think Hagrid was hiding out with Harry at Dumbledore's orders, while Dumbledore was making sure the Longbottoms were secure, doing his best to piece together just what had happpened to the Potters and Voldy, and, perhaps, doing whatever needed to be done to set up the protections on Harry. I have no great problem with the "missing 24", but a lot of people do. And even I admit there are some mysteries. Amiable Dorsai From vmonte at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 23:20:56 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 23:20:56 -0000 Subject: JKR's interviews WAS: Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140236 Potioncat: Yes, and he's still a toe-rag. But she seemed to write him from a more sympathetic view point which has really confused me. He seemed less "bad" after HBP than he did before. He's more conflicted than I expected. I don't understand how anyone could like him...but given the DELUSIONAL badge I wear, I'm hardly one to judge. vmonte: She may be setting up Draco to get away with everything. He's learned a lot from Snape I imagine, and I could see him switch sides the last minute--just to save his skin. And he will get away with everything he has done because he will help the ministry or the Order with something. He will have defenders in the ministry that will point out that he was underage when he joined the DEs, and that he never actually killed anyone. And most importantly, that the reason why he went after Dumbledore was because his family was being threatened. Draco will be the next Snape in waiting...you can never really get rid of these people...evil sucks... Vivian From jmrazo at hotmail.com Fri Sep 16 00:06:16 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 00:06:16 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End--further evidence for DDsMan!Snape?? In-Reply-To: <20050915230132.83575.qmail@web53113.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140238 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > > 'There was a pause and then Snape said quietly, "Ah . . . Aunt > > Bellatrix has > > been teaching you Occlumency, I see. What thoughts are you trying > > to conceal from your master, Draco?"' -HBP, Chapter 15 > > > > Sarah > > A moment for a peeve of mine. Did anyone else find that one of the > most unbelievable parts of the book? Occlumency - this obscure but > useful branch of magic that requires you to control your emotions to > be successful at it - and nuttier-than-a-Ziplock-baggie-of-trail-mix > Aunt Bellatrix knows how to do it? > > Magda (still shaking her head at that one) It actually did make sense to me. I figure using Occlumency was the only way she stayed even close to sane instead of becoming a catatonic vegetable in Azkaban. Sirius had his animal form but from what I've read I gather not many other prisoners stay coherent after a stay of any length in the prison. even a few eggs shy of a dozen she is still basically functional. Makes sense that the ability to compartmentalize your mind would help against Dementors. There is a lot that doesn't make sense in Occlmency. Draco is better at it than Harry because he can compartmentalize his mind better, a sign of being a sociopath, yet Dumbledore, the epitome of good is one the masters of the art. How does that work? Why is snape, a man with the emotional control of a pouty ten year old also a master? Doesn't make sense to me. phoenixgod2000 From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 00:12:15 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 00:12:15 -0000 Subject: Sadistic!Snape? (was:Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140239 > >>Betsy Hp: > > This is where I'm aware I'm kind of on my own, but honestly? I've > > yet to Snape behaving as a "deeply horrible person". > > > >>vmonte: > Checkmate! You've finally revealed yourself completely. Betsy Hp: Huh? Have you read any of my posts on Snape? I've *always* seen Snape in a better light than many. Rather than revealing anything, I thought I was being repetitive > >>vmonte: > It's beyond me how you can say that you don't understand how folks > get the idea that Snape is deeply horrible and sadistic when the > author plainly states this as fact in her books and in her > interviews. > Betsy Hp: Probably because the books don't plainly state it at all. Which is why I ignore the interviews. Though I'll also add that I believe you're stringing two interviews (of fairly different time periods, IIRC) together. I don't think JKR ever said, "Snape is a deeply horrible and sadistic man, who's abusive to his students." But folks take various interviews and manipulate them so it appears that's what she said. Another reason I feel free to ignore the interviews. They can be ambiguous in and of themselves. > >>zgirnius: > > ...I conducted a highly non-scientific poll with a sample of one > (my nephew, now entering the fourth grade, who had just finished > HBP and is a long-time fan of the series.) I asked him what he > thought of Snape as a teacher, and he responded he thought Snape > was a good teacher. He knows his stuff and doesn't put up with > cr*p from his students. So there are at least two of you... Betsy Hp: Yay! Brilliant boy, your nephew. I can tell. So I'm not totally alone! (Though I do think the Snape supporters are many, in reality.) Betsy Hp From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 01:01:26 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 01:01:26 -0000 Subject: Sadistic!Snape? (was:Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140240 > > >>vmonte: > > It's beyond me how you can say that you don't understand how folks > > get the idea that Snape is deeply horrible and sadistic when the > > author plainly states this as fact in her books and in her > > interviews. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Probably because the books don't plainly state it at all. Amiable Dorsai: Other than, you know, picking out a student for "special attention" during his very first Potions class, insulting an orphan's father, insulting a student's looks, playing favorites, casting aspersions on a student's intelligence to another teacher in front of the student and his classmates, making an unjustified criticism of another teacher to that teacher's class, threatening to poison a student's pet and then being abusive after he's thwarted, discouraging class participation from the best student in his class... And then there's the time he tried to have the very souls of two innocent men destroyed. Other than that, yes, he seems very jolly. Amiable Dorsai From vmonte at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 01:42:34 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 01:42:34 -0000 Subject: Snape/Harry coincidence? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140242 Carol wrote: ...On another occasion in the same book, Harry is described from the outside (not seeing himself in a mirror--the narrator is briefly stepping outside Harry's POV). Oddly, the wording strikes me as virtually identical to a description of Snape in GoF. Harry has decided to take his first really courageous and selfless action, entering the forbidden corridor to retrieve the Sorceror's (Philosopher's) Stone: "Well, that's it, then, isn't it?" Harry said. The other two stared at him. His face was pale and his eyes were glittering. "I'm going out of here tonight and I'm going to try and get to the stone first." "You're mad!" said Ron. "You can't!" said Hermione. "After what McGonagall and Snape have said? You'll be expelled!" "SO WHAT?" Harry shouted. "Don't you understand? If Snape gets the stone, Voldemort's coming back! . . . . There won't be any Hogwarts to be expelled from! . . . I'm going through that trapdoor tonight and nothing you two can say can stop me! Voldemort killed my parents, remember?" (SS Am. ed. 270) Despite his error in thinking that it's Snape who has the stone, there can be no mistaking Harry's motivation or his courage. He's risking death (as well as expulsion) to save Hogwarts... Compare this passage from GoF: "Severus," said Dumbledore, turning to Snape, "you know what I must ask you to do. If you are ready. . . . If you are prepared. . . ." "I am," said Snape. He looked slightly paler than usual, and his cold, black eyes glittered strangely. "Then good luck," said Dumbledore, and he watched, with a trace of apprehension on his face, as Snape swept wordlessly after Sirius. (GoF Am. ed. 713). ...Could the SS/PS and GoF passages I've quoted also be deliberately coincidental, the later recalling the earlier to create a parallel between Harry and Snape? Why else would JKR have the narrator deviate from the normal POV to describe SS/PS Harry from the outside and then repeat virtually the same description for a character Harry hates three books later? I suggest that it's because Snape, like Harry, is performing an act of selfless courage in opposition to Voldemort. His action cannot in itself save Hogwarts or Harry, but it's a vital step in Dumbledore's plan to save the WW. Whatever the explanation for HBP Snape, the pale face and glittering eyes suggest an almost fanatical willingness to risk death for Dumbledore's cause, exactly like Harry preparing to enter the corridor in SS/PS. vmonte responds: I don't think that it is a coincidence. She is making a comparison. It's funny; your post reminded me of a comment Snape made to Narcissa and Bella during Spinner's End. It's when Snape mentions that he first thought that Harry might be the next evil overlord. This idea is something that would have never occurred to me. (Come to think of it, it almost implies that Snape had an idea that Harry might be a horcrux. I'm sure someone's mentioned this idea already.) Anyway, I wonder if Dumbledore saw baby Harry's scar and wondered what that might imply as well. Is it also possible that Dumbledore was first unsure about Harry, but gave him the chance to prove himself worthy? I love this moment in HBP: "He accused me of being 'Dumbledore's man through and through.'" "How very rude of him." "I told him I was." "Dumbledore opened his mouth to speak and then closed it again. Behind Harry, Fawkes the phoenix let out a low, soft, musical cry. To Harry's intense embarrassment, he suddenly realized that Dumbledore's bright blue eyes looked rather watery, and stared hastily at his own knees. When Dumbledore spoke, however, his voice was quite steady. "I am very touched Harry." (P358, A Sluggish Memory) Call me corny, but this moment really touched me. It really affirms Dumbledore's faith in Harry and vise versa. I wonder if the comparison is to show that Snape and Harry were both given the same chance to prove themselves. One failed, the other did not. Carol, I really liked your post. I'm going to sleep on it, and consider what you've said. Vivian From raie8 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 01:23:38 2005 From: raie8 at yahoo.com (raie8) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 01:23:38 -0000 Subject: The AK itself, Harry not a Horcrux Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140243 First time posting here, so ignore me if this path has been thoroughly trodden, but I have not read anyone mention what Moody/crouch told the DADA class during his demonstration of the unforgivable curses. He said that the AK requires the caster to use/give a part of himself to make it lethal. He went further to say that they could all point their wands at each other and say the words but nothing would happen because of what is involved in the process. IMO, LV `s attempt to AK Harry was repelled by lilly's protection, and due to the intimate involvement required by the caster in order to perform the curse, a piece or essence if you will, of LV was absorbed by Harry before the total impediance of all that energy combusted the caster. My (half baked) interpretation is that the AK is using your own life force to overcome and disrupt that of another. It makes sense with what was said about the status of the victims and what Moody/Crouch said is required to make the curse work. There is no mark of any kind or trace of what happened; only their surprised/scared expression. It would fit with having your life force sucked/forced out. And in order to do that to someone, you would need to use that part of yourself to accomplish it. You would have to focus your very essence on the task and directed at the target. It also explains why it can't be countered/blocked. Logic would follow that the only thing that could block the Ki (for lack of a better term) of someone wanting to harm you is the Ki of someone trying to protect you. Why has it not been done in the past? They only knew of directing their ki in a negative way, ie the curse, and no one has willingly and unnecessarily given their own life to protect/save another, that wasn't already in mortal peril and to be potent enough. A primal devotion of a mother for her young could very well do just that. Similar to how the patronus is a manifestation of your happiest thoughts focused and projected. The AK is the manifestation of your very being directed out, thus giving up a part of yourself. I don't thing the AK is necessarily evil, just that it is so raw and powerful, that it cannot be controlled to do anything else by destroy/disrupt that connection which binds that soul to the physical flesh. Half baked, my apologies, it was either type or burst. Raie From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 02:29:07 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 02:29:07 -0000 Subject: Sadistic!Snape? /a little bit of Dumbledore's and Lupin's teaching In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140244 > Betsy Hp: > Probably because the books don't plainly state it at all. Which is > why I ignore the interviews. Though I'll also add that I believe > you're stringing two interviews (of fairly different time periods, > IIRC) together. I don't think JKR ever said, "Snape is a deeply > horrible and sadistic man, who's abusive to his students." But > folks take various interviews and manipulate them so it appears > that's what she said. Another reason I feel free to ignore the > interviews. They can be ambiguous in and of themselves. Alla: Here is JKR's quote: "What about Snape? JKR: Snape is a very sadistic teacher, loosely based on a teacher I myself had, I have to say. I think children are very aware and we are kidding ourselves if we don't think that they are, that teachers do sometimes abuse their power and this particular teacher does abuse his power. He's not a particularly pleasant person at all. However, everyone should keep their eye on Snape, I'll just say that because there is more to him than meets the eye and you will find out part of what I am talking about if you read Book 4. No, I'm not trying to drum up more sales, go to the library and get it out. I'd rather people read it. " I think the gist of this quote is exactly that - first sentence says Snape is a sadistic teacher, second sentence says that this particular teacher does abuse his power. Sounds rather close to what you said, IMO. I don't see any manipulation here, Betsy. Besides, if there are interviews which say the similar thing, but with slightly different wording it is because JKR is being repetitive, no? We may mix up exact wording, but the gist is the same, IMO. And since I consider it to be the expression of author's intent, maybe not complete, but certainly not misleading, IMO, I think that it makes the argument stronger. > > Amiable Dorsai: > Other than, you know, picking out a student for "special attention" > during his very first Potions class, insulting an orphan's father, > insulting a student's looks, playing favorites, casting aspersions on > a student's intelligence to another teacher in front of the student > and his classmates, making an unjustified criticism of another teacher > to that teacher's class, threatening to poison a student's pet and > then being abusive after he's thwarted, discouraging class > participation from the best student in his class... > Other than that, yes, he seems very jolly. > Alla: Don't forget that as consequence of his treatment of the students Harry goes to the Occlumency lesson with the "horrible feeling that he was imprisoning himself" ( paraphrase) and Neville ... well, Neville is scared of him most of all. Oh, and of course this teacher seems to have no problem throwing the student out of his office and throwing a curse at the student of his. I suppose this is all in Snape's manual of " what is within teacher's powers and what's not" :-) I think JKR shows perfectly well what kind of teacher she likes and what kind she does not. Lupin of course is a wonderful example, but I think Dumbledore was a great teacher as well. I wish we could see some lessons of his. I loved his reprimand of Harry when he did not get the memory from Slugghorn. "A hot, prickly feeling of shame spread from the top of Harry's head all the way down his body. Dumbledore had no raised his voice, he did not even sound angry, but Harry would have preferred him to yell; this cold dissapointment was worde than anything" - p.428. I find it amusing that Dumbledore knows how to scold Harry without ever actually teaching him ( I mean sure he is the Headmaster, but Harry never had classes with him), but Snape could not figure that out during five years. It reminded me of Remus' scolding Harry when he went to Hogsmead in PoA, that one was also contrasted with Snape attempting to give Harry a lecture in which he failed miserably IMO. I think one of Albus' biggest mistakes was allowing Snape's free reign at Harry and Neville. No, I don't think he did it because he is a Puppetmaster, I get it that he wants people figure out things for themselves ( the example with Hagrid which JKR gave in the interview). I guess he was just hoping that Snape will see the error of his ways on his own, but I think that if he would put his foot down in the beginning, many tragic mistakes could have been avoided. Yes, yes, I get it that we would have no story then, but from within the story, I do think it was a mistake on Albus' part. JMO of course, Alla. From rh64643 at appstate.edu Thu Sep 15 23:20:07 2005 From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 23:20:07 -0000 Subject: Ancient Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140245 Guru wrote: > DD told Harry that Tom Riddle had learned more about the "Ancient > Magic" that exists at Hogwarts than anybody ever had. Will the Three > Musketeers have to learn more about it in Book 7? Will Hermione > finally demonstrate what she's learned here Ancient Runes class? Can > she translate the operating instructions engraved around the edge of > the pensieve? I absolutely love this idea! Hermione has been taking this seemingly pointless(to Ron and Harry) class that no one else in the canon seems to be taking. I think it would be perfect if this Rune literacy of hers ends up being a huge help in the search of the horcruxes. It also reinforces my personal opinion that Ron and Hermione will be neccessary to Harry's mission. I believe that the 7th book will work out a kind of ring composition that will have all 3 freinds playing an important role in the defeat of LV, just like we saw in SS. That will be perfect from a literary standpoint to highlight everyhting they have learned. Also it seems to me after the Cave chapter, many of these horcruxes may be set up so that a single person, no matter how gifted(Dumbledore) won't be able to retreive them. I actually feel that Ron or Hermione might be required to actually destroy LV. I can' really base this on canon, but those of you who have read or seen LOTR will know what I mean. Sorry this was kind of long and I hope I am following all the rules. truthbeauty1 From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Sep 16 02:46:49 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 02:46:49 -0000 Subject: Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty (Re: Hearing from the Great Middle) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140246 vmonte responds: > Checkmate! You've finally revealed yourself completely. It's beyond > me how you can say that you don't understand how folks get the idea > that Snape is deeply horrible and sadistic when the author plainly > states this as fact in her books and in her interviews. houyhnhnm: Well, actually the "deeply horrible" was in a separate statement. "Sadistic" comes from a remark about the former teacher on whom the character was based. I felt she was using the word "sadistic" loosely. Whatever she felt about the teacher she once had, she has not portrayed Snape as sadistic, at least as far as I can see. "Sadistic" is not the opposite of "nice" and it's not synonymous with "mean". I've known plenty of mean people--teachers, bosses, relatives even. I always saw them as miserable individuals who selfishly displaced their own pain onto others, or who were so wrapped up in their own misery they didn't have a thought to spare for others. A sadistic person is something else--a person who takes pleasure in another's pain. I have never known anyone who was truly sadistic, thank goodness. Rowling *has* written a truly sadistic character--Dolores Umbridge. ---------------------------------------- ...beating her wand against her empty palm and breathing heavily. "What Cornelius doesn't know won't hurt him," said Umbridge, who was now panting slightly as she pointed her wand at different parts of Harry's body.... Somebody had to act," breathed Umbridge .... ---------------------------------------- I said, in another post, that I didn't think there was any adult sexuality in the Potterverse. I take it back. Dolores is just about to climax in that scene. This is some pretty sick stuff. We don't get any heavy breathing from Snape. We don't see him panting with excitement when he's giving the Trio a hard time. I don't think anyone here is trying to say that Snape is a nice person. He's a miserable bastard who lashes out at people. He's a hater. A person is not necessarily evil, though, just because they're a hater. I guess I stick up for the character because, in the real world I finally learned that it doesn't make things better to hate back. The only way to conquer such a person is with compassion. There are some who feel that Rowling is going in that direction and I hope they're right. From lealess at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 03:01:57 2005 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 03:01:57 -0000 Subject: Sadistic!Snape? (was:Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140247 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amiabledorsai" wrote: > Amiable Dorsai: > Other than, you know, picking out a student for "special attention" > during his very first Potions class, insulting an orphan's father, > insulting a student's looks, playing favorites, casting aspersions on > a student's intelligence to another teacher in front of the student > and his classmates, making an unjustified criticism of another teacher > to that teacher's class, threatening to poison a student's pet and > then being abusive after he's thwarted, discouraging class > participation from the best student in his class... > > And then there's the time he tried to have the very souls of two > innocent men destroyed. > > Other than that, yes, he seems very jolly. > > Amiable Dorsai Honestly, Snape is not cut out to be a teacher. Not everyone is. So, why is he teaching at Hogwarts? ESE! Voldemort wills it. OFH! It's a comfy, secure position, for now. DDM! Dumbledore wills it. ESG! Let's teach these pampered students something useful in spite of themselves. Grace under pressure may be Snape's forte as a spy, where adults are involved, but may not be his forte as a teacher, where young students are involved. And yet he *is* a teacher, probably contrary to what he would choose to do were he free to choose. He started teaching at a very young age. To the extent he is to blame for his behavior as a teacher... who is his mentor in teaching kids? I believe he has none. He probably has no training as we understand it. Slughorn is the one teacher we know he had as a professor. Slughorn is more concerned with making connections than teaching; he basically lets the students teach themselves. McGonagall: she is no-nonsense and strict, and not always kind. Dumbledore "knows all, sees all" -- yet seems to be hands-off as far as teaching goes. Who else? Snape is left to these role models, his own devices, and his probable dislike of the role, in fashioning his teacher persona. That he may feel uncomfortable interacting with children only adds to the mess. When you paint one teacher with a "bad" brush, it may be instructive to look at others teaching for similar reasons. Trelawney and Hagrid, voluntarily teachers but perhaps even as ill-suited as Snape, according to Harry and his friends, teach at Hogwarts for Dumbledore's reasons. Trelawney continuously forecasts Harry's doom. If he took her more seriously, this might be considered abuse. Hagrid subjects his students to very real potential harm, all with the best intentions. Are we told how many continuing students he has in Harry's sixth year? The way Snape treats Harry Potter, Potter's friends, and Neville Longbottom, has yet to be explained to my satisfaction. Sadism doesn't really explain it, as it does not seem to apply to every student, just these select few. As for Lupin, who hid something very significant from Dumbledore, and Black, who was presumed by the whole wizarding world to be guilty, how was Snape to know anything other than (1) Lupin was hiding something and (2) Black was guilty? Snape may have thought he was doing the right thing. In the end, he didn't call the dementors; he did the right thing. So, for now, I reserve judgment. lealess From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 03:30:59 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 03:30:59 -0000 Subject: Sadistic!Snape? (was:Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140248 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lealess" wrote: > When you paint one teacher with a "bad" brush, it may be instructive > to look at others teaching for similar reasons. Trelawney and > Hagrid, voluntarily teachers but perhaps even as ill-suited as > Snape, according to Harry and his friends, teach at Hogwarts for > Dumbledore's reasons. Trelawney continuously forecasts Harry's > doom. If he took her more seriously, this might be considered > abuse. Hagrid subjects his students to very real potential harm, > all with the best intentions. Are we told how many continuing > students he has in Harry's sixth year? I think this discussion is missing something of the point. The primary issue is not whether Snape is a good or bad teacher. It's about the deliberateness of his actions, but the charge of *sadism* is even more about his attitudes. It's a simple question, really: does he actually *enjoy* the distress of others? McGonagall is strict, but she never gives the impression of strictness as personal gratification--she also doesn't target students on any kind of personal grounds. Hagrid may endanger the students, but he doesn't do it intentionally and then derive pleasure from their unease. JKR tells us that Snape is sadistic, and I think that's generally borne out. He doesn't send Black and Lupin to the Dementors ultimately--but he sure enjoys watching them twist for a while. He targets Harry's Quidditch priviledges after the Deathday scene in CoS, something that would hit at McGonagall but also deprive Harry of a chief pleasure. He sits back and watches and enables Draco in Potions class. He sets Harry a punishment in HBP that he thinks is going to be particularly upsetting to Harry. He singles out Neville in a public situation, so that the kid can squirm in the view of the entire class. Does Snape enjoy being in power and exercising it over inferiors? I could list more evidence, but I think there's a good case to be made for it. (It's JKR who talks about the character as 'abusing' his power.) Does this have any bearing on other issues regarding his character and actions? Could, or could not. -Nora isn't above some good old-fashioned Schadenfreude herself, and notes that there's a funny book on the subject From RoxyElliot at aol.com Fri Sep 16 03:38:53 2005 From: RoxyElliot at aol.com (RoxyElliot at aol.com) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 23:38:53 EDT Subject: The Grey Lady Message-ID: <200.a2d5b10.305b984d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140249 I think that the Grey Lady may be the ghost of Rowena Ravenclaw. Has this been suggested before? According to the Lexicon JKR wrote to the actress who plays her in the movie that the Grey Lady is a highly intellectual young lady. That probably applies to any Ravenclaw female, but JKR also says: "She never found true love as she never found a man up to her standards." To me this may indicate a person so intelligent that they can't find an equal much like Dumbledore. Considering how intelligent we know Rowena was, it isn't far off to guess that she and the Grey Lady are one and the same. CGG http://Caffeinatedgeekgirl.typepad.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Sep 16 04:24:17 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 04:24:17 -0000 Subject: Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty (Re: Hearing from the Great Middle) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140250 > Alla: >Oh, Jen I wonder about Snape al the time :-). So, here is what I am > wondering at the moment. Are you sure that Tom is Snape's canon > opposite? Couldn't it be that those two just represent the > different faces the Evil can assume? Jen: The parallel is lost, though! I'm not very knowledgeable about mechanics of literature, but it's interesting that the 'admirable' Tom Riddle was trusted by everyone except Dumbledore, and the greasy- git Snape was trusted by no one else but. It doesn't fit that nice parallel to have Snape be evil, too :). Maybe it was just coincidence on JKR's part, yet trust is a very big issue in Potterverse. > Alla: > LOL! You see I can call such person not just "very mean", > but "evil", maybe not the same caliber, but definitely evil, so > with me, it is just JKR showed us one more act of such evil person. Jen: You'll laugh at me Alla, but I didn't understand you felt that way. Snape inspires so many different emotions and thoughts, and my bar for evil is different. But I'd rather debate it now & have the chance to disagree than read the series 5 years from now with the outcome a known quantity--we're the lucky ones. > vmonte: > Well there are all sorts of evil people in the world with > different personalities and looks. Evil people use whatever gifts > they have to get what they want. They will use their looks, > intellect, and connections, whatever. To tell you the truth I > think that Snape would make a more interesting villain that > Voldemort. And yes, I also think that he is OFH, since he seems to > have contempt for just about everybody. Jen: I actually find Umbridge to be a better villain than either of them! Talk about someone out for herself. I'm wondering why her actions seemed particularly heinous to me, and it was probably that secrecy/domination thing. Like how Dumbledore described Riddle. Secretly sending the Dementors, trying to trick Harry into drinking Veritaserum, the quill. Maybe that's why Snape strikes me so differently, because he doesn't try to hide his nature or his agenda. Most of his actions are done right out in the open with witnesses, and he couldn't care less. Actually, I think Pippin is talking about a simlar idea here: Pippin > Lately I've been noticing JKR's comments on instincts. Dumbledore > says that Voldemort has instincts for cruelty, secrecy and > domination. In opposition to him, we can see that other characters > have instincts for protectiveness, openness and willingness to > serve. She says that James protected Harry and Lily by instinct, > but with Lily something more than instinct was involved. And now more from Pippin that I have a response to: > Snape really doesn't act to me like a man who has just committed a > murder either reluctantly or gleefully. He acts more like one who > has had a narrow escape and is anxious to get away before something > worse happens. Jen: This still seems attributable to Snape trying to get the DE's and Draco out of Hogwarts. He *is* quickly trying to leave, whether it's for the more honorable reason, or he's simply trying to save his own skin. Pippin: > Under this theory, Snape would have proved his courage to > himself, and would not be upset by Harry's accusation of > cowardice. Indeed he is not, at first, and almost banteringly > brings up James. But then Harry says,"Kill me like you killed him." > > Harry, of course, is speaking of Dumbledore. But Snape has been > talking about *James*. And for a moment we glimpse Snape in > hell "...his face was suddenly demented, inhuman, as though he > was in as much pain as the yelping, howling dog stuck in the > burning house behind them--" before he finishes with > " CALL ME COWARD!" What he meant at first, I think, was > " Don't say I killed James." > > There's the remorse, if anyone but me is looking for it. Jen: Today it occurred to me that Snape was loved by someone, and not just his mom ;), but the person he AK'd off the tower. I believe Dumbledore loved this wayward man with his ragged soul just as much as he loved the hero with his amazingly untarnished soul. Whatever happened on the tower, he was forgiven by Dumbledore. That moment when Snape's face contorted in rage and pain was very poignant to me because he had just killed the only person who fully trusted him and forgave his past, and he'd thrown it away. Even if he threw it away by following orders, it was still his Unbreakable Vow that led to that moment. I saw remorse there, too. (Not for James, though ). Jen From lealess at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 04:34:09 2005 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 04:34:09 -0000 Subject: Sadistic!Snape? (was:Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140251 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > > I think this discussion is missing something of the point. The > primary issue is not whether Snape is a good or bad teacher. It's > about the deliberateness of his actions, but the charge of *sadism* > is even more about his attitudes. It's a simple question, really: > does he actually *enjoy* the distress of others? Sorry, I thought I did say something about that, just not in the part you quoted: "The way Snape treats Harry Potter, Potter's friends, and Neville Longbottom, has yet to be explained to my satisfaction. Sadism doesn't really explain it, as it does not seem to apply to every student, just these select few." And my conclusion... "for now, I reserve judgment." Is Snape a sadist? He seems to single out certain students for censure, for reasons which are unknown. Perhaps his treatment of them stems from disappointment he finds hard to conceal and not a desire to inflict pain. Did Snape enjoy Harry's pain after the death of Dumbledore? If he was a sadist, he should have been reveling in it, his moment of inflicting incredible pain on a person he seemed to despise. Instead, Snape seemed to be in as much pain as Harry. For that matter, if he was a sadist, it seems he might have taken a little more pleasure in the actual killing of Dumbledore itself, might have prolonged the Headmaster's suffering, especially with a crowd of Death Eaters watching. nrenka: > He doesn't send Black and Lupin to the Dementors > ultimately--but he sure enjoys watching them twist for a while. As far as Lupin and Black, all the adults are doing the twist in the Shrieking Shack, talking about the revenge they will wreak... not just Snape. He really didn't do that much in the scene. And he got bumped around for his revenge-driven words. lealess From vmonte at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 04:41:21 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 04:41:21 -0000 Subject: Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty (Re: Hearing from the Great Middle) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140252 houyhnhnm: ... "Sadistic" comes from a remark about the former teacher on whom the character was based. I felt she was using the word "sadistic" loosely. Whatever she felt about the teacher she once had, she has not portrayed Snape as sadistic, at least as far as I can see. vmonte responds: What about Snape? JKR: Snape is a very sadistic teacher, loosely based on a teacher I myself had, I have to say. I think children are very aware and we are kidding ourselves if we don't think that they are, that teachers do sometimes abuse their power and this particular teacher does abuse his power. He's not a particularly pleasant person at all. 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. No, I'm not trying to drum up more sales, go to the library and get it out. I'd rather people read it. http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/1999/1099- connectiontransc.html Vivian Harry & Hermione are platonic friends, "but I won't answer for anyone else, nudge, nudge, wink, wink." [National Press Club, 1999] http://www.madamscoop.org/themes/harry.htm From raie8 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 01:54:11 2005 From: raie8 at yahoo.com (raie8) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 01:54:11 -0000 Subject: Sadistic!Snape? (was:Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140253 > > > vmonte: > > > It's beyond me how you can say that you don't understand > > > how folks get the idea that Snape is deeply horrible and > > > sadistic when the author plainly states this as fact in > > > her books and in her interviews. > > > > Betsy Hp: > > Probably because the books don't plainly state it at all. > > Amiable Dorsai: > Other than, you know, picking out a student for "special > attention" during his very first Potions class, insulting > an orphan's father, insulting a student's looks, playing > favorites, casting aspersions on a student's intelligence > to another teacher in front of the student and his > classmates, making an unjustified criticism of another > teacher to that teacher's class, threatening to poison a > student's pet and then being abusive after he's thwarted, > discouraging class participation from the best student in > his class... > > And then there's the time he tried to have the very souls of > two innocent men destroyed. Raie: I suppose it all depends on the delivery and charisma with which one presents themselves. I have been in a student-ish role under an instructor with qualities very similar to SS, and I pushed myself beyond my perceived limitation just to not disappoint him. I have the utmost respect for him and his praise, though rare and reserved, meant the world to me. No, I don't have mental issues (no more than the rest of us here); the entire class felt the same way. This approach is has been mentioned before(The Prince, no less- coincidence that so many of his actions can be seen in? I think not) and is quite effective for earning respect, controlling subordinates, and inciting others to excel. I believe this is just SS way of challenging the students, to motivate them. Nothing brings out one's true potential like adversity. From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Fri Sep 16 06:28:52 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 06:28:52 -0000 Subject: Sadistic Snape, Occlumency, etc Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140254 Hi, Replying to a lot of posts here, will need more practice with snipping.... Pippin wrote >Snape really doesn't act to me like a man who has just committed a >murder either reluctantly or gleefully. He acts more like one who has >had a narrow escape and is anxious to get away before something >worse happens. Elyse: I agree completely. The lack of gloating or pleasure at killing DD, I must admit, its absence is suspicious. This is in complete contrast to PoA where Snape is enjoying the idea of Black and Lupin getting kissed by Dementors. "They'll be very pleased to see you Black, pleased enough to give you a little kiss, I daresay." I would like to point this out to people arguing for the Sadistic!Snape thread. If he is as sadistic as you paint him, why did he not enjoy this moment more? Pippin wrote: >Under this theory, Snape would have proved his courage to >himself, and would not be upset by Harry's accusation of cowardice. >Indeed he is not, at first, and almost banteringly brings >up James. But then Harry says,"Kill me like you killed him." Elyse: This is true. If Snape is OFH/ESE! why did he react so strongly to the cowardice accusation *after* this point? Harry had called him a coward before, but Snape paid no attention, did not get angry until this point. Pippin: >Harry, of course, is speaking of Dumbledore. But Snape has been >talking about *James*. And for a moment we glimpse Snape in >hell "...his face was suddenly demented, inhuman, as though he >was in as much pain as the yelping, howling dog stuck in the >burning house behind them--" before he finishes with >" CALL ME COWARD!" What he meant at first, I think, was >" Don't say I killed James." >There's the remorse, if anyone but me is looking for it. Elyse: I like it. It sounds a bit confusing if you look at it from the Snape was talking about James angle. But this could tie in nicely with Snape feeling he did not do enough to pay back James' life debt. Magda wrote: >Did anyone else find that one of the >most unbelievable parts of the book? Occlumency - this obscure but >useful branch of magic that requires you to control your emotions to >be successful at it - and nuttier-than-a-Ziplock-baggie-of-trail-mix >Aunt Bellatrix knows how to do it? Elyse: Absolutely!!!! I thought you were supposed to have emotional detachment if not complete control to be a good Occlumens, neither of which Bella seems to have. And dont you think it SO impossible that Draco who was taught by such a crackpot of a teacher can withold thoughts from SNAPE???? This is the man who can supposedly fool both LV and DD if he wants yet a total snotrag like Draco can close his mind from him? Incidentally I've always been surprised that Harry could break into Snape's mind during OOTP Occlumency lessons. I mean how come Snape can hold out on his memories from LV but someone like Harry who has *no* Legilimency power can break through? I think JKR messed up on that one. phoenixgod2000 wrote There is a lot that doesn't make sense in Occlmency. Draco is better at it than Harry because he can compartmentalize his mind better, a sign of being a sociopath, - Elyse interrupting: I'm sorry, but since when is compartmentalizing your mind a sign of being a sociopath? Are you suggesting all people with good emotional detachment/control have mental problems? It just seems kind of an unfair leap. phoenixgod2000 continuing: yet Dumbledore, the epitome of good is one the masters of the art. How does that work? Why is snape, a man with the emotional control of a pouty ten year old also a master? Doesn't make sense to me. Elyse: Come on, give Snape due credit. He lost emotional control two times *only* in 6 years. Both times he was reacting to memories of childhood bullies. Compare that to Harry who loses his temper so often, especially in OOTP, and goes into long rants against his best friends, his family, his girlfriend, and that too for little things. Its Harry who has poor emotional control, not Snape. Amiable Dorsai: >Other than, you know, picking out a student for "special attention" >during his very first Potions class, insulting an orphan's father, >insulting a student's looks, playing favorites, casting aspersions >on >a student's intelligence to another teacher in front of the student >and his classmates, making an unjustified criticism of another >teacher >to that teacher's class, threatening to poison a student's pet and >then being abusive after he's thwarted, discouraging class >participation from the best student in his class... Elyse: I must point out here that many teachers have favourites, many teachers call their students unintelligent and dumb. I myself have a teacher, extremely sadistic, who insults not only my parents, but anybody she wants to criticize, and does so in front of the whole class. I hate her. She brings out a fight or flight response in me each time and I have to bite my tongue to stop calling her names out loud. She is without question *worse* than Snape. Infinitely worse. She has done all of the things you have witten above other than poisoning a toad. I am not justifying her behaviour, merely pointing out that he is one of many unpleasant (mild adjective) people. Hagrid who JKR loves, is more culpable than Snape of being a bad teacher. He puts students' lives in danger with his dangerous creatures. He does it knowingly, which is in my opinion worse. Also his lessons have very little educational value. So what I dont understand, is how come Hagrid is off the hook for endangering students with little care for how much they learn? Just because he is nice and friendly doesnt make him less culpable. And here we have antisocial Snape who saves students lives routinely and teaches Potions very well, but he is attacked for the simple reason that he is not a nice man. Doesnt make sense to me. Elyse From dossett at lds.net Fri Sep 16 03:32:39 2005 From: dossett at lds.net (rtbthw_mom) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 03:32:39 -0000 Subject: Ancient Magic / The Trio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140255 > Guru wrote: > > DD told Harry that Tom Riddle had learned more about the > > "Ancient Magic" that exists at Hogwarts than anybody ever > > had. Will the Three Musketeers have to learn more about it > > in Book 7? > > truthbeauty1: > It also reinforces my personal opinion that Ron and > Hermione will be neccessary to Harry's mission. I believe > that the 7th book will work out a kind of ring composition > that will have all 3 friends playing an important role in > the defeat of LV, just like we saw in SS. That will be > perfect from a literary standpoint to highlight everything > they have learned. > I actually feel that Ron or Hermione might be required > to actually destroy LV. I can't really base this on canon, > but those of you who have read or seen LOTR will know what I > mean. Pat: Isn't there something from one of the interviews where JKR says something about after Ron got his new wand that "all the elements were there between the three of them" (no, that's not an exact quote, just my memory of the interview) for something magical, power-wise? I hope I haven't mangled this too much. If I'm wrong, I'll go iron my ears - please straighten me out! I, too, have wondered if all three of them won't be required to work together, at least in destroying the horcruxes, and possibly in the final battle with LV. From bercygirl2 at aol.com Fri Sep 16 04:06:12 2005 From: bercygirl2 at aol.com (bercygirl2) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 04:06:12 -0000 Subject: Snape/Harry coincidence? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140256 > Carol wrote: > ...Could the SS/PS and GoF passages I've quoted also be > deliberately coincidental, the later recalling the earlier to > create a parallel between Harry and Snape? Why else would JKR > have the narrator deviate from the normal POV to describe > SS/PS Harry from the outside and then repeat virtually the > same description for a character Harry hates three books later? > vmonte responds: > I don't think that it is a coincidence. She is making a comparison. I really like both these thoughts, since I've seen a big comparison between Harry and Snape in HBP. In POA, when HHR are in the Shrieking Shack confronting Remus and Sirius, Snape's name comes up in connection with the prank Sirius played on him. Sirius says (paraphrasing here since my copy of PoA is loaned out) that it served him right, because he (Snape) was always sneaking around, trying to find out what the Marauders were up to. Umm, who do we know in HBP who was continually sneaking around spying on someone in HBP and becoming obsessed with what that person was up to??????? -Donna From abishag00 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 05:39:15 2005 From: abishag00 at yahoo.com (Abby) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 05:39:15 -0000 Subject: Sadistic!Snape? (was:Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140257 *sighs* You have driven me to it, you all start an interesting discussion and I, a natural born lurker, am posting. And when I should be studying for college too. . . blast. I just want to ask some questions; who among you have not delighted in making in a person we dislike feel bad? If we have personal enemies do we not rejoice, secretly or perhaps not so secretly if they get hurt? Don't we go out of our way to make those people feel uncomfortable? Is this the absolute sadism? How many of us here, have forgiven our childhood enemies? Would we be able to face them and be polite? Or am I the only deeply flawed individual here? Whatever Snape is, be he ESE! (what does that stand for anyway? I mean, I guess it means something to do with "Snape is Evil!" For that matter what do all those odd little like Acid Pops stand for?) or anything else, he seems to be JKR's "human" character. Dumbledore is the good, while Voldemort is evil incarnate*, but Snape is just human. And he shows the worst traits humans have to offer: he's mean, nasty, holds grudges, is vicious, shows favoritism, and can kill.? He also has some of the better traits of humans: he's intelligent, has sheer creativity, and almost noble at times (GoF in particular; the hospital bit at the end got me sort of liking him.) I've met people were not "particularly pleasant" people, so perhaps I've had to learn that "nice does not equal good," earlier than most. Sorry about the bad grammar, it's late now. Just thought I'd point out that we are all guilty of being human. Abby who will be murdered by vmonte. * And like all evil just a bit. . . dumb. Let's just say he has not won my respect. Honestly some of his plans are just. . . dumb; indeed I lost a great deal of respect for Harry for falling for the trap in OOTP. I figured it out myself and Harry acted like an idiot. Well, I think he and Voldemort are evenly matched then. If Harry was up against brains he'd be dead meat. Were it not for the fact that Harry is the main character, I wouldn't be giving him good odds against Snape. Some part of me wants him to be a bad guy, just so we can get a decent bad guy for once. ? Oh yes, and he has the most noticeable sign of evil . . . he's ugly. Well he looks evil so he must be. From jmrazo at hotmail.com Fri Sep 16 07:36:18 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 07:36:18 -0000 Subject: Sadistic Snape, Occlumency, etc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140258 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ellecain" > >I would like to point this out to people arguing for the > Sadistic!Snape thread. If he is as sadistic as you paint him, why > did he not enjoy this moment more? He was in the middle of a pitched battle that needed attending to and gloating takes up too much time. Maybe because he was trying to keep his eye on the prize and his plans were nearing fruition or hell, maybe he really was working for Dumbledore and liked the old guy. Hell, just because he worked for DD doesn't mean he can't be a sadist to his students and Harry in particular. getting out his issues on inferiors with little ability to strike back seems like the sort of thing a petty sadist would engage in. > Elyse: I like it. It sounds a bit confusing if you look at it from > the Snape was talking about James angle. > But this could tie in nicely with Snape feeling he did > not do enough to pay back James' life debt. Or because James also called him a snivelling coward and he reacted instinctively to the insult. > Incidentally I've always been surprised that Harry could break > into Snape's mind during OOTP Occlumency lessons. > I mean how come Snape can hold out on his memories from LV > but someone like Harry who has *no* Legilimency power > can break through? I think JKR messed up on that one. My theory is that Harry piggybacked on the spell back into Snapes thoughts, bypassing his shields. Its what I use in my fan fic. > Elyse interrupting: > I'm sorry, but since when is compartmentalizing your mind a sign of > being a sociopath? > Are you suggesting all people with good emotional detachment/control > have mental problems? > It just seems kind of an unfair leap. In a sixteen year old, yeah, I think its a sign of some pretty bad problems. I used to work in some pretty rough schools with some dangerous student gangbangers and I can tell you that every last one of them could compartmentalize their mind enough to keep a blank expression while knifing the guy next to them. They'd be real good at Occlumency. Teenagers are supposed to be more like Harry, bundles of emotion and hormones who wear their hearts on their sleeves. It's what a teenager is. I have enough experience with detached teens to know that being that way is a real bad idea. Furthermore, in the mugglenet interview JKR actually says that in a way Harry is better off with not being great at occulmency because it means he isn't as cut off from his emotions as Draco is. tells me that the skill of Occlumency isn't often a skill of the incredibly moral. > Elyse: Come on, give Snape due credit. He lost emotional control > two times *only* in 6 years. Both times he was reacting to > memories of childhood bullies. Wah Wah Wah. Poor wittle Snape. He is an almost forty years old man, he should get past a childhood trama with a dead guy. Own up to the fact he ain't ever going to get back at James Potter and remove the rod from his @##. As for only twice in six years, I also have to disagree there. I see every encounter with Harry as an example of lost emotional control. What else is blaming the son of a dead man for his crimes, real or imagined if not a lack of emotion control? If he were genuinely good at compartmentalizing he should be able to seperate James from Harry and treat each one of them in the way they have earned. Harry hasn't earned the way Snape treats him. > Compare that to Harry who loses his temper so often, especially > in OOTP, and goes into long rants against his best friends, > his family, his girlfriend, and that too for little things. > Its Harry who has poor emotional control, not Snape. When did he rant against his girlfriend? I remember awkwardness but no ranting. And Harry is a teenager, he should be erratic. That's what they are. Teenage brains are miracles of hormonal instability. The brains of forty year olds, much more stable. At least if you aren't Snape. > Elyse: > I am not justifying her behaviour, merely pointing out that he is > one of many unpleasant (mild adjective) people. In a way I think Snape is worse than Voldemort which is why I react to him so strongly. Voldie is a mustache twirling cartoon villain, Snape is the sort of evil that can crush a kids love of learning and there are far more examples of that kind of evil than there are of Voldemorts. > Hagrid who JKR loves, is more culpable than Snape of being a bad > teacher. He puts students' lives in danger with his dangerous > creatures. He does it knowingly, which is in my opinion worse. > Also his lessons have very little educational value. Not true, his lessons are used in almost every book by Harry and Co. I don't think he endangers students for the most part, guys like Draco endanger themselves by not listening him because they think they know better. Frankly, I think Hagrid teaches the most interesting classes in the books and I would sit in on any of the them in a new york minute. Snape's I wouldn't take if I were paid. Phoenixgod2000 From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 10:26:14 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:26:14 -0000 Subject: Sadistic!Snape? (was:Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140259 Abby: > I just want to ask some questions; who among you have not > delighted in making in a person we dislike feel bad? Wouldn't claim to be perfect, but I do try not to take my frustrations out on 11-year-old orphans. > Whatever Snape is, be he ESE! (what does that stand for anyway? Ever So Evil. Amiable Dorsai From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 10:40:44 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:40:44 -0000 Subject: Keep Harry Horcrux Free Challenge! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140260 >> > MIL: > > But you must remember that Gryffindor's sword didn't become Horcrux! Sword because LV failed to complete the murder; he was Vapormort before he could make his final horcrux... Finwitch: Besides, Harry drew that Sword out of the Sorting Hat (which, incidentally, belonged to Godric Gryffindor as well) and according to Dumbledore, only a true Gryffindor could have done that... I'd say the sword stayed in the hat until 12-year-old Herry took it out and killed a basilisk with it. Afterwards it was in Dumbledore's office, of course. The Sword cannot be Voldemort's Horcrux - he couldn't get to it until Harry's 2nd year... or at the very least, I expect information on 'how he got his hands on it' if it does turn out to be one. Finwitch From ken.fruit at gmail.com Fri Sep 16 10:45:20 2005 From: ken.fruit at gmail.com (Ken Fruit) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 05:45:20 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ancient Magic / The Trio In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <71beed6b05091603456f81b212@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140261 On 9/15/05, rtbthw_mom wrote: > > > Guru wrote: > > > DD told Harry that Tom Riddle had learned more about the > > > "Ancient Magic" that exists at Hogwarts than anybody ever > > > had. Will the Three Musketeers have to learn more about it > > > in Book 7? > > > > truthbeauty1: > > It also reinforces my personal opinion that Ron and > > Hermione will be neccessary to Harry's mission. I believe > > that the 7th book will work out a kind of ring composition > > that will have all 3 friends playing an important role in > > the defeat of LV, just like we saw in SS. That will be > > perfect from a literary standpoint to highlight everything > > they have learned. > > I actually feel that Ron or Hermione might be required > > to actually destroy LV. I can't really base this on canon, > > but those of you who have read or seen LOTR will know what I > > mean. > > > Pat: > Isn't there something from one of the interviews where JKR says > something about after Ron got his new wand that "all the elements > were there between the three of them" (no, that's not an exact > quote, just my memory of the interview) for something magical, > power-wise? I hope I haven't mangled this too much. If I'm > wrong, I'll go iron my ears - please straighten me out! > > I, too, have wondered if all three of them won't be required to > work together, at least in destroying the horcruxes, and possibly > in the final battle with LV. > Guru again: After we figure out the part runes are going to play, we also have to figure out where the arithmancy comes in. From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 11:18:45 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 11:18:45 -0000 Subject: Ancient Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140262 truthbeauty1: ...It also reinforces my personal opinion that Ron and Hermione will be neccessary to Harry's mission. Amiable Dorsai: Dumbledore tells Harry that they are the only two people who know the full prophecy, a secret that people have died for, a secret that kept Voldy tied up for a year, a secret that Dumbledore has not shared with any other member of the Order. Then he urges Harry to share this incredibly important secret with a couple of teenagers. He tells Harry about an even more important secret--the Horcruxes. The best chance of eliminating Voldemort is to keep Voldemort from even knowing that there is a hunt on to find and destroy the fragments of his soul. Dumbledore has apparently not shared this secret with anyone else, and with good reason: If Voldy knows Dumbledore has his number, he will almost certainly make the remaining Horcruxes harder to find. Dumbledore gives Harry permission to chat about Horcruxes with two sixth-year students. I have a feeling that Dumbledore agreed with your opinion. Amiable Dorsai From vmonte at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 11:39:20 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 11:39:20 -0000 Subject: Sadistic Snape, Occlumency, etc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140263 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ellecain" > >I would like to point this out to people arguing for the > Sadistic!Snape thread. If he is as sadistic as you paint him, why > did he not enjoy this moment more? >Phoenixgod2000 wrote: He was in the middle of a pitched battle that needed attending to and gloating takes up too much time. Maybe because he was trying to keep his eye on the prize and his plans were nearing fruition or hell, maybe he really was working for Dumbledore and liked the old guy. Hell, just because he worked for DD doesn't mean he can't be a sadist to his students and Harry in particular. getting out his issues on inferiors with little ability to strike back seems like the sort of thing a petty sadist would engage in. vmonte responds: I agree with Phoenixgod2000. Snape has just murdered Dumbledore. His main goal is to get out of Hogwarts as fast as he can before anyone finds out what he has done. > Elyse interrupting: > I'm sorry, but since when is compartmentalizing your mind a sign of > being a sociopath? > Are you suggesting all people with good emotional detachment/control > have mental problems? > It just seems kind of an unfair leap. >Phoenixgod2000: In a sixteen year old, yeah, I think its a sign of some pretty bad problems. I used to work in some pretty rough schools with some dangerous student gangbangers and I can tell you that every last one of them could compartmentalize their mind enough to keep a blank expression while knifing the guy next to them. They'd be real good at Occlumency. Teenagers are supposed to be more like Harry, bundles of emotion and hormones who wear their hearts on their sleeves. It's what a teenager is. I have enough experience with detached teens to know that being that way is a real bad idea. Furthermore, in the mugglenet interview JKR actually says that in a way Harry is better off with not being great at occulmency because it means he isn't as cut off from his emotions as Draco is. tells me that the skill of Occlumency isn't often a skill of the incredibly moral. vmonte: It is a bad sign. I've seen this type of detachment in children as young as five. > Elyse: Come on, give Snape due credit. He lost emotional control > two times *only* in 6 years. Both times he was reacting to > memories of childhood bullies. >Phoenixgod2000: Wah Wah Wah. Poor wittle Snape. He is an almost forty years old man, he should get past a childhood trama with a dead guy. Own up to the fact he ain't ever going to get back at James Potter and remove the rod from his @##. As for only twice in six years, I also have to disagree there. I see every encounter with Harry as an example of lost emotional control. What else is blaming the son of a dead man for his crimes, real or imagined if not a lack of emotion control? If he were genuinely good at compartmentalizing he should be able to seperate James from Harry and treat each one of them in the way they have earned. Harry hasn't earned the way Snape treats him. vmonte: Snape never loses his cool? I have to agree again with Phoenixgod. Snape comes off as a raving lunatic to me--complete with spit flying from his mouth. > Elyse: > I am not justifying her behaviour, merely pointing out that he is > one of many unpleasant (mild adjective) people. >Phoenixgod2000: In a way I think Snape is worse than Voldemort which is why I react to him so strongly. Voldie is a mustache twirling cartoon villain, Snape is the sort of evil that can crush a kids love of learning and there are far more examples of that kind of evil than there are of Voldemorts. vmonte: Yes, I have this same reaction to Snape. Elyse: > Hagrid who JKR loves, is more culpable than Snape of being a bad > teacher. He puts students' lives in danger with his dangerous > creatures. He does it knowingly, which is in my opinion worse. > Also his lessons have very little educational value. >Phoenixgod2000: Not true, his lessons are used in almost every book by Harry and Co. I don't think he endangers students for the most part, guys like Draco endanger themselves by not listening him because they think they know better. Frankly, I think Hagrid teaches the most interesting classes in the books and I would sit in on any of the them in a new york minute. Snape's I wouldn't take if I were paid. vmonte: Didn't Harry learn about Buckbeak, skrewts, dragons, and thestrals from Hagrid? Vivian From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Fri Sep 16 11:46:03 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 11:46:03 -0000 Subject: Keep Harry Horcrux Free Challenge! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140264 I can't believe it but I have actually come full circle during the course of this debate. Only last week, my wife and I were laughing at the naivety of those who believed Harry wasn't a Horcrux. Now, I genuinely believe that he isn't. I think the facts are these; Voldemort wanted 7 soul pieces as this was a magical number. He created the diary, the ring, the locket, the chalice + Ravenclaw's object (probably the wand). The final Horcrux was to be made with Harry's death, which suggests that he had the complete set of founders objects i.e. something of Gryffindor's was present at GH. JKR continually claims that the AK rebounded onto Harry, so it is common sense to believe her!! Also, would Voldemort risk putting a soul piece into Harry. Nobody had any idea what effect that would produce. Surely, if the soul piece in Harry created another powerfully dark wizard, there was the risk that Harry could destroy Voldemort and become dominant! When Voldemort was strong enough he realised that he couldn't be picky, and just had to choose a Horcrux to make the number up to 7. So he chose Nagini - which is why he looks so snake like!! Yes, the problem of Harry's Voldemort-like powers remain. But it is still possible that the rebounded AK caused a transference of power. At the moment, I am very interested in Snape's actions during the duelling club in COS. He suspected Harry was the parseltongue - BUT WHY?? If you are against Horcrux Harry, then it suggests that Snape knows something about the AK curse (and he knows as much about the Dark Arts as anyone) that would suggest a transference of power. If you are for Horcrux Harry, then you could argue that Snape knew that Voldemort has attempting to make Harry a Horcrux. Brothergib (about 85% sure that Harry isn't a Horcrux!!) From BrwNeil at aol.com Fri Sep 16 11:57:55 2005 From: BrwNeil at aol.com (brwneil) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 11:57:55 -0000 Subject: How far will JKR go? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140265 Rowling has shown us that she has no qualms when it comes to killing off our favorite characters. Just how far will she go in book seven? In book six she matched Harry with Ginny and Hermione with Ron, but avoided saying in interviews that either of these couples would live happily ever after. Will one or more of these four die in the finale installment? Since book one, readers have wondered if Harry would die in his efforts to defeat Voldemort. Many others feel that the chess game in book one was a hint that Ron would ultimately die in order that Harry could continue on to defeat Voldemort. Is Hermione safe? Then there is Ginny. Harry's mother's love saved him, but she died. Could history repeat and Ginny die so that Harry can defeat Voldemort? Personally, I like happy endings and would prefer to see everyone live. JKR on the other hand seems to thrive on being different and surprising us. Will any of these four die? If so, how many and who? From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 12:03:08 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:03:08 -0000 Subject: What mistakes Dumbledore made? Re: Loyalty & Trust In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140266 > > houyhnhnm: > > > I take Dumbledore's confession of his "mistakes" as just another > > expression of his whimsical, self-deprecating style, a facade > behind > > which exists a supremely powerful and self-confident wizard. > > Alla: > > I take them as declaration of mistakes, especially since JKR said > that Dumbledore does make mistakes and big ones too. Finwitch: I thought Dumbledore stated quite clearly at least ONE mistake at the end of OOP: 'forgetting what it is to be young' - in practice: Having Snape teach Harry Occlumency. Early HBP it's repeated - Dumbledore himself calls that a *fiasco*. Considering that Harry's not learning Occlumency at all in HBP, I'd say the whole *idea* of having him try was an error. Because a 15-year-old boy is biologically unable to control his emotions enough to learn, and as the set teacher wasn't able to control *his* emotions, either... But no matter what side Snape's on, I do not think that Dumbledore trusting Snape was Dumbledore's error. I don't know why, but I recalled an old tale of Lothlorien who could remain only as long as the Queen did not question his origins (as long as her trust was solid, that is) and then I understood just why Dumbledore acted the way he did, saying "I trust Severus Snape" and refusing to hear a word against him. Plain and simple, the *only* thing keeping Snape on the good side, was Dumbledore's trust. Dumbledore was perfectly aware of this, particularly when one or other questions this trust. That's why Dumbledore kept saying "I trust Severus Snape" and refusing to listen any bad word of him. Because he did not wish to lose this soul who hung to goodness *only* on his trust. I think that choice was a sign of DD's goodness and wisdom-- not a misjudgement -- no matter where Snape's loyalties. If Snape wasn't worth that trust, the blame rests wholly on Snape's shoulders, and not on Dumbledore's. Finwitch From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 12:18:39 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:18:39 -0000 Subject: Sadistic!Snape? (was:Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140267 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lealess" wrote: > As far as Lupin and Black, all the adults are doing the twist in the > Shrieking Shack, talking about the revenge they will wreak... not just > Snape. He really didn't do that much in the scene. And he got bumped > around for his revenge-driven words. Doing the twist and letting someone twist: not quite the same thing... ****** "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..." What little color there was in Black's face left it. "You--you've got to hear me out," he croaked. "The rat--look at the rat--" But there was a mad glint in Snape's eyes that Harry had never seen before. He seemed beyond reason. ****** Okay, we all know that Snape actually does *not* do as he says he's going to here, and takes them back to the castle. What else, then, is he doing in this excerpt than enjoying Black and Lupin being scared, and pleading? This is the point where Snape is in control of the scene, after all. If we want to say "Oh, just a little gloating at having caught the evildoers," that actually makes my point. I still have some real questions about this part of the book: my main one is whether Snape is sincere when he says that the children have been Confounded, because if not he's trying to shut up anyone who could contradict his story, and that's not the action of a man doing the right thing. So I do hope he was sincere (a moral virtue in the Potterverse, to have one's professed and actual emotions in alignment-- so long as the emotions are in the right place), there, but I don't know if we'll ever get that answered in book. -Nora finds it hard to wake up without the sun From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Sep 16 12:26:29 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:26:29 -0000 Subject: Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty (Re: Hearing from the Great Middle) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140268 > vmonte responds: > > What about Snape? > JKR: Snape is a very sadistic teacher, loosely based on a teacher I > myself had, I have to say. I think children are very aware and we are > kidding ourselves if we don't think that they are, that teachers do > sometimes abuse their power and this particular teacher does abuse > his power. He's not a particularly pleasant person at all. 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. No, I'm not trying to > drum up more sales, go to the library and get it out. I'd rather > people read it. > http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/1999/1099- > connectiontransc.html houyhnhnm: Then she *is* using the word carelessly. There is a huge difference between being "not a particularly pleasant person" and being sadistic. The world is full of "not particularly pleasant" people. Out of all the bosses I've had I would have to say more have been not particularly pleasant than particularly pleasant. I didn't feel their purpose in life was to cause *me* pain however. That is an immature and self- centered point of view, common in teenagers and in those whose emotional development has been arrested in adolescence. In other words, those who are most upset by the Snapes of this world are those who have the most Snape-like qualities themselves. From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 13:09:22 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 13:09:22 -0000 Subject: The AK itself, / Keep Harry Horcrux Free Challenge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140269 Saraquel replying to Elyse, Raie, Ceridwen and Sandy Elyse wrote: > although my argumentative powers are feeble. Saraquel: Whatever gave you that idea! Argument from Legilimency Nice one, Elyse, I think I'll just sit back and nurse my flesh wound, and watch the action over this one. Wizards and Muggles Elyse wrote: >I believe the ability to speak Parseltongue must reside in genes >or blood. If Slytherin's heirs could all speak Parseltongue, are you >suggesting they had Salazar Slytherin's soul in them? >Sandy wrote: >Not only did TMR have the gift of parseltongue after he'd created >himself a body, but he had it *when he was possessing Ginny*, before >he had a body... so the ability *had* to be part of the soul piece in >the horcrux diary. Didn't it? Saraquel: Absolutely loved that point, brought a huge grin to my face. Although the more we toss this subject around, the more blurred it becomes as to what resides where. I did have it all nicely sorted in my mind, but participating in this thread has managed to levicorpus me completely and my brain now resembles scrambled egg. Elyse wrote: >In PoA Lupin says if your soul is sucked out you become "an >empty shell" devoid of thought, feeling, you simply exist. So this >indicates not only that the mind and personality is a function of >the but also that your magical power - the ability to harness magic >out of ether or whatever - still resides in you. Only now that you >have lost your mind you cannot use it. Saraquel: I can't quite follow you here, are you saying that because Lupin did not actually specify that you lost your magical powers as well, that they therefore must still be in you? If so, I'm not totally convinced about that as evidence. Elyse wrote: >Hoping I gave Saraquel some support. Saraquel: Welcome to the bit of flotsam that is "Harry is not a Horcrux" ? hope you've got some waterwings :-) Welcome to the list Raie. Wow, great first post, I loved it. (I seem to remember that mine was more like mimblewimble.) It made me dive for GoF and reread that scene. All that wonderful evidence just sitting there under my nose, and I can't believe I never thought to reference it. Thanks Raie! From the tone of your post and the way you argue, you might be interested in going back a bit to some posts that happened earlier, I'll put some links at the bottom of this post. OK, so what happened in that lesson, which I think is relevant to this thread is: UK Ed GoF Ch 14 p191 `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. Moody was saying `Avada Kedavra's a curse that needs a powerful bit of magic behind it , - you could all get your wands out now and point them at me and say the words, and I doubt I'd get so much as a nose-bleed.' So the real question is, what is the vast invisible something? Does that describe a soul or life force or powers or what? Raie wrote: >My (half baked) interpretation is that the AK is using your own life >force to overcome and disrupt that of another. It makes sense with >what was said about the status of the victims and what Moody/Crouch >said is required to make the curse work. There is no mark of any >kind or trace of what happened; only their surprised/scared >expression. It would fit with having your life force sucked/forced >out. Saraquel: I loved this thought ? although I wouldn't worry about it being half- baked, with the evidence available to us on this sort of topic, we're all pretty used to eating raw food on the list, half-baked is a bonus :-) If JKR meant `vast' literally, then I think it being a soul fragment is less likely. We are told that murder *splits* the soul, rather than murder sends a part of your soul hurtling through space. Also, Horcruxes have been quite small objects ? although it might be a compressible vastness The fact that Moody says it needs a powerful bit of magic behind it also implies that some powers might be in the mix. More like nuclear fission ? the soul splits, and releases energy and radiation ? life force and powers anyone? Sounds absolutely wonderful to me, Raie ? no accidental horcrux needed IMO ? big grin. In hindsight, if news got back to DD about what Crouch!Moody was doing in his lessons, then he should have sussed him out straight away. I'm not going to take you up on the GH scenario here, Raie, I think that deserves a thread of its own. Ceridwen, I think that some of your points have already been answered by Elyse so I'll just pick up a couple of points. Sarquel wrote: Evidence from CoS >Ceridwen wrote: >I don't think it's a given that TR would have gone for Harry instead >of Ginny. Saraquel: I think you may have misunderstood me here, Ceridwen. I was thinking that if Harry was a horcrux, then the moment Voldemort's soul entered him at GH, it would have tried to suck the life force out of baby Harry, especially as Voldemort was made instantly bodiless. Ceridwen wrote: >(Going off on a tangent here, could the power source reside in the >heart? If someone who is not magical does perform magic in book 7, >could it be because they have found their heart/courage in a >desperate situation, like mothers who heave cars off their kids? >And, if being 'heartsick' over a lost or oblivious love can diminish >one's magic, then that would be a heart effect, too) Saraquel: I'm also swimming in porridge over just what resides where, but I do think that the emotions reside in the blood, which was why Harry started to feel Voldemort's emotions *after* Voldemort used his blood in the rebirthing scene. There is obviously a connection between emotion and powers (Tonks), but I have also speculated on hands being important here, that DD lost some of his powers when his wand hand died, and that he wasn't willing to give up the whole of his left hand, but only two or three fingers! Also, do witches channel magical power (your power source) or is it in them? My thought is that they may channel it, rather in the manner of spiritual healers. Hoping you've got enough bandages for your hands :-) I might have to come and join you, because, what always puzzles me is the scene in PS film, where someone (Voldemort or whoever else was at GH)is standing over Harry *after* Lily's death, and baby Harry has no scar!!! Work that one out. Saraquel Raie, the promised links. They are mostly to my own posts, as I only have a record of those, but rummage around and you will pick up the threads. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139703 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139763 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139828 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/136797 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137115 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137386 From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Sep 16 13:15:38 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 13:15:38 -0000 Subject: Missing 24 hours. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140270 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amiabledorsai" wrote: > eggplant: Amiable Dorsai: > Now we don't know how fast Sirius' motorbike was, but the UK isn't > that big--at any reasonable speed, Hagrid should have been able to get > from wherever Godric's Hollow is to Surrey in a lot less than 24 hours. Geoff: Just to flesh out that comment, it has been suggested that Godric's Hollow was in South Wales. If Hagrid passed over Bristol, a straight line between the supposed location of Little Whinging, which is considered to be in Surrey-that-was-Middlesex north of the river, and Godric's Hollow would, when extrapolated, land you up in West Wales, probably somewhere from Swansea westwards to Milford Haven. With a good earthbound motor vehicle that couldn't fly and the M4 motorway most of the way, the journey should be done in 4-5 hours. So Hagrid on a flying motorcycle, especially as it was done at night, could have made it easily within a few hours of rescuing Harry - which brings us back to the 24 hour question. From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 13:48:21 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 13:48:21 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End--further evidence for DDsMan!Snape?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140271 Magda wrote: >A moment for a peeve of mine. Did anyone else find that one of the >most unbelievable parts of the book? Occlumency - this obscure but >useful branch of magic that requires you to control your emotions to >be successful at it - and nuttier-than-a-Ziplock-baggie-of-trail-mix >Aunt Bellatrix knows how to do it? Phoenixgod wrote: >It actually did make sense to me. I figure using Occlumency was the >only way she stayed even close to sane instead of becoming a >catatonic vegetable in Azkaban. >There is a lot that doesn't make sense in Occlmency. Draco is >better at it than Harry because he can compartmentalize his mind >better, a sign of being a sociopath, yet Dumbledore, the epitome of >good is one the masters of the art. How does that work? Why is >snape, a man with the emotional control of a pouty ten year old >also a master? Doesn't make sense to me. Saraquel: It actually did make sense to me :-) I don't think being good at occlumancy is about comparmentalising your mind, but about compartmentalising your emotions. Disassociating from them with your mind, so that you do not *know* what you are feeling and pushing them way down and packing them in. The problem with this (and I've got plenty of experience from my childhood!) is that, with no outward expression of them, the pressure builds up inside. Hence, when Snape is safe to express some emotion, it comes out as an almighty explosion. Almost as though every feeling he ever had piggybacks a ride in order to get itself expressed. From dc.thorburn at ntlworld.com Fri Sep 16 13:53:23 2005 From: dc.thorburn at ntlworld.com (Derek Thorburn) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:53:23 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] How far will JKR go? References: Message-ID: <007a01c5bac6$02acb0d0$3e781652@thorburn> No: HPFGUIDX 140272 I think, in the main, JKR's reason for killing people was to kill off people who have been more than family to Harry - Sirius and Dumbledore coming to mind. Digory's death occurred because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. LV didn't bank on their mutual decision to take the cup, thus transporting them to the graveyard. It seems to me that what she's wanting to do is to bring Harry to such a point that before any more deaths can occur of people close to him, he'll go to any lengths to destroy LV. Derek ----- Original Message ----- From: "brwneil" To: Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 12:57 PM Subject: [HPforGrownups] How far will JKR go? > > > Rowling has shown us that she has no qualms when it comes to killing > off our favorite characters. Just how far will she go in book seven? > > In book six she matched Harry with Ginny and Hermione with Ron, but > avoided saying in interviews that either of these couples would live > happily ever after. Will one or more of these four die in the finale > installment? > > Since book one, readers have wondered if Harry would die in his > efforts to defeat Voldemort. Many others feel that the chess game in > book one was a hint that Ron would ultimately die in order that Harry > could continue on to defeat Voldemort. Is Hermione safe? > > Then there is Ginny. Harry's mother's love saved him, but she died. > Could history repeat and Ginny die so that Harry can defeat > Voldemort? Personally, I like happy endings and would prefer to see > everyone live. JKR on the other hand seems to thrive on being > different and surprising us. Will any of these four die? If so, how > many and who? > > > > > > > > > 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 ellecain at yahoo.com.au Fri Sep 16 13:52:11 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 13:52:11 -0000 Subject: Sadistic Snape, Occlumency, etc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140273 "phoenixgod2000": > He was in the middle of a pitched battle that needed attending to and > gloating takes up too much time. Elyse: If this was the case, why did he bother to exchange that whole "Dont call me coward" bit at the end? If he was so intent in getting out of there why argue with Harry over his dead father and give him the magical equivalent of a bitch slap? He could have just Petrificus Totalused Harry and ran on. Instead he ranted on about a silly nickname and spells he invented in school. Methinks he was reluctant to leave Hogwarts after the sanctuary it had been to him for 16 years. "phoenixgod2000": > Hell, just because he worked for DD doesn't mean he can't be a sadist > to his students and Harry in particular. getting out his issues on > inferiors with little ability to strike back seems like the sort of > thing a petty sadist would engage in. Elyse: But a lot of people abuse their inferiors. Whole populations of people have been subjucated to enormous cruelty by the invading people in history. You only have to look at Apartheid, the Holocaust etc. Not all people who followed these systems to mistreat their so- called inferiors were sadists. Elyse: I like it. It sounds a bit confusing if you look at it from > > the Snape was talking about James angle. > > But this could tie in nicely with Snape feeling he did > > not do enough to pay back James' life debt. "phoenixgod2000": > Or because James also called him a snivelling coward and he reacted > instinctively to the insult. Elyse: Ah, but it was Snape who brought James into the discussion. Almost banteringly, as Pippin said. And I doubt that James ever called Snape a coward. He seemed full of fight when they were humiliating him in OOTP. "You wait" he panted "You wait".... Elyse: > > Incidentally I've always been surprised that Harry could break > > into Snape's mind during OOTP Occlumency lessons. > > I mean how come Snape can hold out on his memories from LV > > but someone like Harry who has *no* Legilimency power > > can break through? I think JKR messed up on that one. "phoenixgod2000": > My theory is that Harry piggybacked on the spell back into Snapes > thoughts, bypassing his shields. Its what I use in my fan fic. Elyse: But the spell did not ricochet off the shield and hit Snape. At least I dont remember any jets of light hitting him. Harry simply blocked it. Snape's wand fell away from him so he could not have continued the spell. By the way, what fanfic?! I'd love to read it!!! Please send me a copy :) > > Elyse interrupting: > > Are you suggesting all people with good emotional detachment/control > > have mental problems? phoenixgod2000: > In a sixteen year old, yeah, I think its a sign of some pretty bad > problems. Teenagers are supposed to be more like Harry, bundles > of emotion and hormones who wear their hearts on their sleeves. It's > what a teenager is. I have enough experience with detached teens to > know that being that way is a real bad idea. Elyse: I am appalled at the rough schools you mentioned. Never had any experience with that kinda thing. However, maybe I should tell you that I just turned 18 in June. And while I am not exactly a role model of emotional control, my best friend is. She is a very moral person, with intelligence,and compassion. She has a horror of being petty, and has never held a grudge, always resisted the temptation to take revenge in small ways even with the opportunity right in front of her. I admire her and strive to be more like her every day. But the reason she is able to be what she is, is because of her amazing self control over her emotions. She has never let her emotions stand in the way of good judgement. phoenixgod2000: > Furthermore, in the mugglenet interview JKR actually says that in a > way Harry is better off with not being great at occulmency because it > means he isn't as cut off from his emotions as Draco is. tells me > that the skill of Occlumency isn't often a skill of the incredibly > moral. Elyse : Let me clarify. Occlumency is done well by those people who have emotional control. If not emotional control, then at least emotional detachment. Both terms mean that you have emotions, strong ones,but your conscious mind prevents an emotional hijack. You have to stop these feeling get a hold over you and colour your judgement. This does not in any way, mean that you are cut off from these emotions, you do not stop yourself feeling them, rather you control your emotions as opposed to them controlling you. I do not see this as a bad thing. Anyway even if you are not convinced by my explanation, I have one word: Dumbledore! > > Elyse: Come on, give Snape due credit. He lost emotional control > > two times *only* in 6 years. Both times he was reacting to > > memories of childhood bullies. > > Wah Wah Wah. Poor wittle Snape. He is an almost forty years old man, > he should get past a childhood trama with a dead guy. Elyse: Once again,let me explain what I was trying to say. Even into adulthood, there are some triggers in your memory that remind you not only of certain incidents, but how you FELT during those incidents. A long ago taunt, a smell, a song can still remind you very strongly of what you were feeling at a certain time. It happens to many people: even though their head may know that he/she is not a @#*$# the feelings that well up are harder to suppress, making you feel the same way you did when you were eight years old. And can you honestly say that watching your own memory of a bullying incident, you would have complete emotional control no matter how old you were? phoenixgod2000":BIG SNIP Harry hasn't earned the way Snape treats him. Elyse: I agree. But I think this is a deliberate device by Snape not have any feelings for Harry because he has to assume the unrepentant Death Eater role. Of course, opinions differ. phoenixgod2000": > When did he rant against his girlfriend? > Elyse: Right before he jumps into Snape's pensieve in OOTP. Snape's Worst memory chapter. phoenixgod2000": > I don't think he endangers students for the most part, guys like > Draco endanger themselves by not listening him because they think > they know better. Elyse: Oh come on, the Blast Ended Skrewts were a prime example. He ought to have less dangerous creatures in his classes. At a place like Hogwarts where trouble erupts all the time, why add fuel to the fire by putting deadly animals into the mix? Elyse From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Sep 16 13:59:40 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 13:59:40 -0000 Subject: Sadistic!Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140274 Nora: > Okay, we all know that Snape actually does *not* do as he says he's > going to here, and takes them back to the castle. What else, then, is he doing in this excerpt than enjoying Black and Lupin being scared, and pleading? This is the point where Snape is in control of the scene, after all. If we want to say "Oh, just a little gloating at having caught the evildoers," that actually makes my point. Pippin: I agree. Snape fan though I be, I think Snape is sadistic in the sense JKR uses it -- someone who does not suppress the instinctive urge to be gratified by pain. I think all the characters show this instinct to some extent, even Dumbledore, who kicks Fake!Moody over onto his back. Certainly Harry does -- he keeps trying to use the cruciatus curse. But I also think that Snape's instinct to be protective is damaged, so that when he does protect someone it is not out of animal instinct but actually, in JKR's eyes, nobler because it is a choice, though Snape isn't always noble enough to make it. Nora: > I still have some real questions about this part of the book: my main one is whether Snape is sincere when he says that the children have been Confounded, because if not he's trying to shut up anyone who could contradict his story, and that's not the action of a man doing the right thing. Pippin: He's also protecting Harry, Ron and Hermione from punishment for attacking him - an offense, together with being out of bounds after dark, which would surely demand expulsion, at least for Ron who has no celebrity to protect him. Dumbledore says himself that without Pettigrew there is no hope of convincing anyone to take the word of three thirteen year old wizards and a werewolf who is known to be an old friend of Sirius. I don't think three thirteen year old wizards and the word of an ex-Death Eater who is known to be Dumbledore's man would have made any difference either. Fudge didn't take Snape's word about Voldemort's return when Snape had actual evidence. Why should he take it about Pettigrew when Snape didn't have any proof at all? The truth, as Dumbledore says, should be treated with great caution. If Harry and Hermione had admitted to helping Black willingly and been guarded more closely, who knows what would have happened? Pippin From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 16 14:02:46 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:02:46 -0000 Subject: Missing 24 hours. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140275 > Geoff: So > Hagrid on a flying motorcycle, especially as it was done at night, > could have made it easily within a few hours of rescuing Harry - which > brings us back to the 24 hour question. Potioncat: It is suddenly crystal clear! I don't know why we haven't put this together before! Using both canon and RL maps it's been proved that Hagrid took far longer to get Harry to the Dursleys than he should have. Hagrid is the one who steadfastly stands up for Professor Snape. Using both canon and RL charts it's been proved that Snape took far too long to report that Harry was missing. They're in it together! The dastardly duo: Batman and the Hulk! From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 14:13:57 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:13:57 -0000 Subject: How far will JKR go? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140276 brwneil wrote: > Rowling has shown us that she has no qualms when it comes to killing > off our favorite characters. Just how far will she go in book seven? > Saraquel: I'm glad you've brought this up, because I have a sneaking suspicion that the reason all Harry's nearest and dearest are behind the veil, is so that if she kills him off at the end, they will all be there to welcome him and he can die happily ever after. IMO, if/as soon as Ginny goes in book 7, expect Harry to follow. Although I would like for Harry to triumph over Voldemort and remain very much alive. Why should the power and promise of love always be later - after death, why not here and now? Saraquel From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Sep 16 14:18:00 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:18:00 -0000 Subject: The AK itself, / Keep Harry Horcrux Free Challenge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140277 > Ceridwen wrote: > >(Going off on a tangent here, could the power source reside in the > >heart? If someone who is not magical does perform magic in book 7, > >could it be because they have found their heart/courage in a > >desperate situation, like mothers who heave cars off their kids? > >And, if being 'heartsick' over a lost or oblivious love can diminish > >one's magic, then that would be a heart effect, too) > > Saraquel: > I'm also swimming in porridge over just what resides where, but I do > think that the emotions reside in the blood, which was why Harry > started to feel Voldemort's emotions *after* Voldemort used his > blood in the rebirthing scene. There is obviously a connection > between emotion and powers (Tonks), but I have also speculated on > hands being important here, that DD lost some of his powers when his > wand hand died, and that he wasn't willing to give up the whole of > his left hand, but only two or three fingers! Also, do witches > channel magical power (your power source) or is it in them? My > thought is that they may channel it, rather in the manner of > spiritual healers. Ceridwen: Oh, I think this might be four. But I forgot to answer this one point before when you raised it, so the iron is heating up again. I don't think the blood/heart are exclusive. The heart pumps the blood, and all of the blood goes through the heart. Blood also goes through the other organs, including the skin. So, a body would be diffused with the emotions. I chose the heart because it *is* possible to channel emotions away from primal instinct, and even to cut them off entirely or compartmentalize them. The heart has four chambers - compartments. The heart is also symbolic of love or hate, and of courage or of fear. It seems to represent the emotions connected with how we view others and our world. So, I would place the power center of magic in the heart specifically, and if it then powers the magic in the blood, then that makes sense. When there is a disconnect in the emotions of the heart, the magic suffers. I still believe that the reason Dumbledore's powers were diminished is because his dominant hand was damaged. The body apart from the blood is as necessary to magic as the magic itself and its power source within the body. Voldemort couldn't do magic, not because he got stupid all of a sudden, but because he lost his body and couldn't hold a wand. I would assume that a good wizard who had learned his lessons well, would be able to cast a spell with his wand under his arm or clutched between his toes, too, just not as well as if he was holding his wand in his dominant hand. Like we see or hear of people who are able to draw with their feet, lacking hands. And, I suppose that someone who learned to cast spells holding a wand in their toes would do just as well as someone who was only used to holding their wand in one particular hand. In the same way, spells can be cast nonverbally, and even wandlessly (Legilimency for one), but they're not as powerful as when one uses words and a wand. And, the spoken word makes a spell more powerful, too. The 'breath of life'. 'Ask and ye shall receive'. 'Speak "friend" and enter'. IMO, magic is a power wielded by the whole being. So, I guess, which part does what is academically interesting, but if you don't have all parts functioning up to speed, you do diminished magic at the best, no magic at the worst. Ceridwen. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Sep 16 14:23:05 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:23:05 -0000 Subject: Snape/Harry coincidence? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140278 Carol: > Could the SS/PS and GoF passages I've quoted also be deliberately > coincidental, the later recalling the earlier to create a parallel > between Harry and Snape? Why else would JKR have the narrator > deviate from the normal POV to describe SS/PS Harry from the outside > and then repeat virtually the same description for a character Harry > hates three books later? > I suggest that it's because Snape, like Harry, is performing an act of > selfless courage in opposition to Voldemort. His action cannot in > itself save Hogwarts or Harry, but it's a vital step in Dumbledore's > plan to save the WW. Whatever the explanation for HBP Snape, the pale > face and glittering eyes suggest an almost fanatical willingness to > risk death for Dumbledore's cause, exactly like Harry preparing to > enter the corridor in SS/PS. Jen: I remember a thread on the number of times JKR has the narrator step back from Harry's POV and they are more frequent in PS/SS & COS than the other books (correct me here, Carol). In the past I've chalked it up to her style of writing in the earlier books. Also, the passage in GOF would not be a POV shift, right? Harry is in the room and seeing this interaction, or is there a subtle shift I'm not picking up on? I would find it more than coincidental if the narrator steps back both times. That's not to say I don't see a huge parallel between Harry and Snape already. Prior to OOTP, I read Snape as the unsympathetic antagonist to the hero. Voldemort was supposed to be the classic antagonist I suppose, but since he was more of a phantom & completely absent in POA, Snape appeared to play that role in my mind. He didn't read as evil so much as annoyingly interfering! So I felt wrong-footed by OOTP--why was JKR suddenly showing us what Snape and Harry have in common? Harry identified more with Snape than James after viewing the Pensieve scene. Then during the Occlumency lessons, Harry is 'unnerved' seeing the memory of the crying boy and realizing that person is standing before him with 'loathing' in his eyes. Both have seen each other's memories and none are pleasant on either side. And the loathing goes both ways, it seems, at least from Harry's POV. Then HBP comes along and there are *more* commonalities. Donna mentions a good one, Harry's obsession with Draco as similar to Snape's obsession with the Marauders. Harry learns from the HBP in a way he never learned from Snape, and Hermione draws the conclusion that Snape's DADA speech was similar in tone & style to Harry's speeches about Voldemort. Last, but most important, both have Dumbledore's trust, and that trust led to the parallel scenes in the cave and on the tower. To mix things up even more, JKR shows us boy Riddle and we see how very different he and Harry were from a young age. The similarities she drew for us in COS have given way to differences, while the connections with Snape grow in number. So JKR has adequately prepared us for Snape/Harry being more 'personal' than Harry/Voldemort, as she said in the TLC/MN interview. All that's left is finding out Snape loved Lily--Oh please, no, that one is too much for me ;)! Regardless, I think Harry *will* see Snape with Lily's eyes of compassion one day, and only then will Harry (and readers) see him for exactly who he is. Jen, thinking of Lily now and wondering if there's anything that woman couldn't do? From griffin782002 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 14:33:02 2005 From: griffin782002 at yahoo.com (sp. sot.) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 07:33:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldemort in Albania WAS: Re: Horcrux Issue In-Reply-To: <20050909024455.51972.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050916143302.6385.qmail@web52703.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140279 Juli wrote: Juli again: hmm good question. What is *So* important about Albania that Voldie chose to hide there, why couldn't it be any other country? what's so special about Albania? Maybe Jo just likes the way it sounds Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Albania known for its vampires? Doesn't Transylvania (where Dracula comes from) is in Albania? Maybe there're quite a few Dark Wizards there so he would feel *at home* ther? I dunno. Just thinking of possible explanations. Juli Aol: jlnbtr. Yahoo: jlnbtr Griffin782002 now: Transylvania is not in Albania but in Romania which is north of Bulgaria and has no borders with Albania. Perhaps JKR chose Albania because it is still a somewhat isolated country. Griffin782002 --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Sherry at PebTech.net Fri Sep 16 14:36:24 2005 From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:36:24 -0000 Subject: Missing 24 hours. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140280 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > >Amiable Dorsai: > > > > Now we don't know how fast Sirius' motorbike was, but the UK isn't > > that big--at any reasonable speed, Hagrid should have been able to get > > from wherever Godric's Hollow is to Surrey in a lot less than 24 > hours. > > Geoff: > > With a good earthbound motor vehicle that couldn't fly and the M4 > motorway most of the way, the journey should be done in 4-5 hours. So > Hagrid on a flying motorcycle, especially as it was done at night, > could have made it easily within a few hours of rescuing Harry - which > brings us back to the 24 hour question. Amontillada: Hagrid might have been making the journey cautiously, taking a deliberately indirect route (similar to the circuitous route Moody led in OotP). He wanted to avoid the Death Eaters, who could be expected to be out, in confusion about just what had happened, trying to get their hands on the child whom they blamed. Bellatrix & Co's attack on the Longbottoms later shows that at least some Death Eaters didn't try to give up on LV right away. Dumbledore knew of this, since he wasn't alarmed that Hagrid wasn't already there in Ch. 1 of SS/PS. He also took into account the best time to lay Harry at the Dursleys' door. Leaving him in very late night or early morning, so the Dursleys would find him when Uncle Vernon went to work, made much more sense than dropping him off at midday, in plain sight of the entire neighborhood. Amontillada From ibchawz at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 14:49:12 2005 From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:49:12 -0000 Subject: The AK itself, / Keep Harry Horcrux Free Challenge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140281 > Saraquel: > Hoping you've got enough bandages for your hands :-) I might have to > come and join you, because, what always puzzles me is the scene in > PS film, where someone (Voldemort or whoever else was at GH)is > standing over Harry *after* Lily's death, and baby Harry has no > scar!!! Work that one out. ibchawz: Since hand bandages seem to be in short supply, I'll just grab the nearest lamp and prepare to repeated bash my head. This one is relatively easy to work out. The logical flow of events is as follows: 1. LV murders James Potter. 2. LV murders Lily Potter (Or rather Lily sacrifices herself as opposed to chosing to step aside). 3. LV attempts to murder Harry Potter, but the spell rebounds due to Lily's sacrifice. Harry would not have the scar at this point in time because LV has not attempted to murder him yet. The scar is a by-product of the rebounded AK. ibchawz From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 15:00:06 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:00:06 -0000 Subject: Sadistic!Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140282 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > He's also protecting Harry, Ron and Hermione from punishment for > attacking him - an offense, together with being out of bounds after > dark, which would surely demand expulsion, at least for Ron who has > no celebrity to protect him. I'd be more inclined to believe that explanation if it were not for Snape showing some real first-class Taking!It!Personally! (tm TWoP forums) both in that scene, and later. Now, you may want to argue that *that* is where Snape is being insincere, but I find that to be a harder sell. It's very much about "You can't possibly believe Black and the kids over *me*, can you, Headmaster?" (And in the original quote which I have here paraphrased, JKR was kind enough to provide the emphasis for us.) I think. But then I also see that 'me me me!' tendency as one of the keys to Snape's personality, and that may turn out to be an incorrect reading of what we've gotten so far. It's not the only thing at work-- for sure--but it's certainly very prominent. -Nora runs off to get ready to give her kids a quiz...they just have to take it, she has to *grade* them From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 15:00:51 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:00:51 -0000 Subject: The AK itself, / Keep Harry Horcrux Free Challenge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140283 > ibchawz: > > Since hand bandages seem to be in short supply, I'll just grab the > nearest lamp and prepare to repeated bash my head. This one is > relatively easy to work out. The logical flow of events is as > follows: > > 1. LV murders James Potter. > 2. LV murders Lily Potter (Or rather Lily sacrifices herself as > opposed to chosing to step aside). > 3. LV attempts to murder Harry Potter, but the spell rebounds due to > Lily's sacrifice. > > Harry would not have the scar at this point in time because LV has > not attempted to murder him yet. The scar is a by-product of the > rebounded AK. Saraquel: Preparing to bang head against desk thoroughly as well as iron hands as this is my fourth post today! Never mind it's gone midnight here, so I'm off to bed in a mo. In GoF Priori Incantatem, there is no extra spell to account for the rebounded AK curse, implying that Lily was AKed and died and Harry got his scar at one and the same time. Now do you see my problem? From sherriola at earthlink.net Fri Sep 16 15:23:24 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 08:23:24 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sadistic!Snape? (was:Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <007101c5bad2$95501880$3621f204@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 140284 Abby asked: I just want to ask some questions; who among you have not delighted in making in a person we dislike feel bad? If we have personal enemies do we not rejoice, secretly or perhaps not so secretly if they get hurt? Don't we go out of our way to make those people feel uncomfortable? Is this the absolute sadism? How many of us here, have forgiven our childhood enemies? Would we be able to face them and be polite? Or am I the only deeply flawed individual here? Sherry responds: Well, Abby, first of all I don't think you're flawed. However, no, I don't go out of my way to be impolite or unkind to people who have done me wrong in some way. I try with all my might never to act toward people like that as they have acted toward me. For one thing, it's unprofessional in the workplace, so it's a good habit to get out of. And it just isn't my way. I might actually be even more polite toward someone like that, than I would be to a trusted friend, whom i could tease and insult without fear. As forgiving childhood enemies, yes, I've forgiven them. I didn't have enemies like a Draco for instance, but I had a lot of people make fun of me for my disabilities, including some cousins. I'm nearly 48 now, and I sure have forgotten those things. I don't hold against my cousin, who was probably only repeating what she heard grownups say. However, the one person I do not forget or forgive is my own personal Snape, a teacher in high school who was indeed sadistic and thought himself just pushy and tough. To make it worse, he didn't actually teach anything, but he was the teacher in my school, who oversaw the lives of the blind students in that particular public high school. He had enormous power over our lives, poked his nose into our personal business, caused me great trouble with my dad. Sometimes, it was deserved, but often it was not. He is the reason I never went to college, because for years, the very idea made me physically ill. i was not the kind of kid to fight back, like Harry. I was the type to take it in and internalize it. So, no, I have not forgiven him. However, if I was in a position of authority over his grandchildren, i would never ever hold their relative's sins against them. That is incredibly childish and downright cruel and ridiculous. I would never even be unkind or cruel to him, if I was somehow in authority over him. After all, it would mean stooping to his level, becoming as terrible as he was to act like that. I hope I am a better person than that. I have made sure never to see him again, and I'm happy with that. I don't mean that to imply anyone who acts differently than i is like Snape. It is just life choices I've made about the kind of person I want to be,. Perhaps it's why I react so visceral to Snape's teaching method. more toward Neville. And no, that teacher did not make me stronger. I got all my stubborn strong will from my father. Snape seems to me to delight in the torment he puts his students through, the weaker he perceives the student to be the more fun he has at it. He loves beating down the strong ones, Like Harry, and Hermione for her knowledge. He revels in abusing Neville. The difference between any of us who might take it out on an enemy someday or find pleasure in an enemy's pain is that hopefully, it is adult to adult. to find pleasure in tormenting children is sick. Sherry From Sherry at PebTech.net Fri Sep 16 15:38:40 2005 From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:38:40 -0000 Subject: Sadistic vs. Unpleasant (Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140285 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > vmonte quoting Rowlings: > > > > JKR: Snape is a very sadistic teacher, loosely based on a teacher I > > myself had, I have to say. I think children are very aware and we are > > kidding ourselves if we don't think that they are, that teachers do > > sometimes abuse their power and this particular teacher does abuse > > his power. He's not a particularly pleasant person at all. > > houyhnhnm: > > Then she *is* using the word carelessly. There is a huge difference > between being "not a particularly pleasant person" and being sadistic. [Equating them] is an immature and self- > centered point of view, common in teenagers and in those whose > emotional development has been arrested in adolescence. Amontillada: I don't read JKR as using "sadistic" carelessly, but as referring to different DEGREES of cruelty vs. unpleasant or inappropriate manner of teaching. I notice two things about her description: * She says "this particular teacher does abuse his power. He's not a particularly pleasant person at all" in the PRESENT tense. She HAD that teacher as a girl herself--PAST tense. So when she says "does abuse his power" and "He's not a particular pleasant..." is she talking about her former teacher or about Snape? * She says that Snape is LOOSELY based on her former teacher, not that he was a direct portrait. Recalling that bad teacher may have given her an idea; then she thought something like "All right, what if I take him to the extreme--make him outright cruel or sadistic?" That may have been how she got the initial idea for Snape, but not the fully fleshed-out character. Doesn't JKR say on her website that Gilderoy Lockhart is the only character she based directly on someone she knew? That also suggests that Snape isn't a portrait of her teacher, so she isn't using "sadistic" and "unpleasant" as synonyms. Amontillada From littlebitgal at att.net Fri Sep 16 12:59:59 2005 From: littlebitgal at att.net (Linda K.) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 08:59:59 -0400 Subject: Sadistic Snape, Occlumency, etc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <005a01c5babe$8f42cf00$ac9b4c0c@linda> No: HPFGUIDX 140286 >Elyse: >Hagrid who JKR loves, is more culpable than Snape of being a bad >teacher. He puts students' lives in danger with his dangerous >creatures. He does it knowingly, which is in my opinion worse. >Also his lessons have very little educational value. >So what I dont understand, is how come Hagrid is off the hook for >endangering students with little care for how much they learn? >Just because he is nice and friendly doesnt make him less culpable. >And here we have antisocial Snape who saves students lives routinely >and teaches Potions very well, but he is attacked for the simple >reason that he is not a nice man. >Doesn't make sense to me. LittleBitGal: Hagrid loves those creatures - dangerous or otherwise - and wants to share that love with the children at Hogwarts. He doesn't wittingly endanger the kids. He just doesn't think things through. That doesn't make him a bad teacher or a bad person. He's the teacher who wants all the students to get as many experiences out of life as possible. He has a heart of gold and would not knowingly do something bad. I think for the most part, the kids at Hogwarts love Hagrid and miss him terribly when he's not there. Snape is an excellent teacher. I've known many teachers who do not call on that "one student" who always knows the answers, because they want the other students to think for themselves and come up with the right answer. Let's face it, Hermione tends to be the know-it-all that we all disliked in school. Don't get me wrong, I like Hermione's character, but her hand is always up. As for taunting Harry - - Snape knows what Harry is going to have to deal with as he grows up. I think he wants Harry to push himself to learn. Harry seems to be the student who needs to be embarrassed into doing it right. The "I'll show you I can do it" syndrome. I think your use of "anti-social Snape" is a good description of Snape. I don't think he cares to be around people. He does care that students learn and learn properly. I had never thought of Snape as being evil until I began reading the posts here. I thought of him as a loaner, a perfectionist, maybe a bit too quick to judge others; but never evil. LittleBitGal From lealess at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 16:07:01 2005 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:07:01 -0000 Subject: The AK itself, / Keep Harry Horcrux Free Challenge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140287 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > IMO, magic is a power wielded by the whole being. So I guess, which > part does what is academically interesting, but if you don't have > all parts functioning up to speed, you do diminished magic at the > best, no magic at the worst. > I agree that magic is channeled through the whole being, if that is what you are saying, as long as the being is alive. A brain-damaged person may live, but not do magic (Neville's parents); therefore, blood and heart alone are not enough. What you seem to be saying is that magic draws from all four elements. Hence, the four houses were created (Gryffindor = heart, courage, fire, Hufflepuff = body, grounding, earth, Ravenclaw = mind, thought, air, Slytherin = emotion or soul?, achievement, water). Magic must exist all around and within a magical person. I think the mind as well as the heart, body and emotions can direct it. When these elements work in concert, the magic is most powerful. Intent is important, obviously, whether AKing someone or apparating. lealess From rh64643 at appstate.edu Fri Sep 16 15:10:15 2005 From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:10:15 -0000 Subject: Ancient Magic / The Trio In-Reply-To: <71beed6b05091603456f81b212@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140288 Pat: > > Isn't there something from one of the interviews where JKR says > > something about after Ron got his new wand that "all the elements > > were there between the three of them" (no, that's not an exact > > quote, just my memory of the interview) for something magical, > > power-wise? I hope I haven't mangled this too much. If I'm > > wrong, I'll go iron my ears - please straighten me out! > > > > I, too, have wondered if all three of them won't be required to > > work together, at least in destroying the horcruxes, and possibly > > in the final battle with LV. > > truthbeauty1 again: I have never heard that interview but it kind of brings up a theory I have had for a while. We know that Harry is in Gryffindor but was almost in Slytherin. We know that Hermione could have easily been in ravenclaw. Now there isnt any real proof in the canon, but I think that Ron has a lot of Hufflepuff traits. The hat didnt spend a long time on him, but I think that his main trait is loyalty which is the main Hufflepuff trait. He difinitely represents the earth element. I mean think about it. His home is called "The Burrow", and his namesake envokes a weasle. I think that the trinity is a reincarnation of the mauraders. There are 3 instead of 4 bc 3 is a more perfect # and we know that one of the 4 became a traitor. Harry, Ron , and Hermione together have all the strengths of the 4 houses and of corse they are all very brave and worthy of Gryffindor. I think this makes them a very formidable whole. Also we know that Voldemort believes there to be some kind of power in the combination of the 4 houses. (horcruxes) This is just my opinion but if anyone has any info for or against it I would love to hear it. From darqali at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 15:55:37 2005 From: darqali at yahoo.com (darqali) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:55:37 -0000 Subject: Voldie's Wand and other details Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140289 Asked before, and got no answer, so trying again: *How did LV regain his wand?* When the events at Godric's Hollow were over, Harry's parents were dead and Voldemort had become Vapormort. We just had comment about doing magic with a wand; Dumbledore's powers being perhaps diminished due to a damaged wand hand; a wizard doing magic holding a wand with his toes if he had no hand ..... but we know the Vapormort stage of LV's career left him unable to use a wand .... {He said so himself while recounting his history.} *Where was Voldermort's wand in his years of exile? How did he later recover it?* The question is followed by the most obvious speculation: Peter Pettigrew was the one who betrayed the Potter's location to LV. So possibly, even *probably*, Pettigrew was present at Godric's Hollow. He could have retrieved LV's wand {and the intended Horcrux object as well} after the house "blew up" and LV lost his body. {Or, some other Death Eater present could have done so ... as we have no specific knowledge as to who might have been present .... but clearly it had to have been someone in LV's camp; and someone who knew that LV was not dead, finished, too; best alternative to Pettigrew would be Barty Crouch Jr., because other candidates, such as Malfoy Sr were ready to write LV off.} But then Pettigrew fakes his own death {strange parallel} by "blowing up" a street full of Muggles, leaving behind his severed finger to indicate he was killed, thus ensuring no one will seek him in hiding and framing the one person who could have fingered {*snicker*} him {Peter} as the traitor ..... his act sends Sirius Black to Azkban, where no one will listen to the truth, that Peter was the real Secret Keeper, and the traitor, not Sirius. *So how did Peter Pettigrew manage to keep possession of his own wand, much less hang on to the wand of LV for his master?* As for the time of Hagrid's arrival at the Dursely's: Dumbledore had to learn of the events at Godric's Hollow, and decide what to do; then Hagrid had to be summoned by Dumbledore and assigned his task; Hagrid had to go to Sirius Black to borrow his motorcycle {was that at Grimould Place, London? Or some other residence of Sirius'? Where?}; then go to Godric's Hollow {on the borrowed bike}; then search through the rubble of the ruined house and extricate Harry {no problem, says Hargid, but how long did it take?}; and only *then* could he begin his journey to the Dursely's. Seems to require more than 4 or 5 hours to me .... There are a lot more troubling "out of time" issues in Potterverse than this to me .... for one simple example, the Chamber Of Secrets was supposedly made, and hidden, in the era of the founding of Hogwarts ... about 1,000 years ago from present day. So how could the hidden passage to the chamber be in a modern-day girls' bathroom through the plumbing of a sink? Were wizards using modern bathrooms 1000 years ago? Now *theres* an issue of time-out-of-place to chew over. darqali From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Sep 16 16:01:40 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:01:40 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sadistic Snape, Occlumency, etc References: Message-ID: <00fe01c5bad7$f05f2770$0aba400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 140290 I'm wading in here a little nervously, because I think it's getting kind of personal--I mean, there's a point where how we react to a character doesn't necessarily tell us what that character is up to. >>Phoenixgod2000: > In a sixteen year old, yeah, I think its a sign of some pretty bad > problems. I used to work in some pretty rough schools with some > dangerous student gangbangers and I can tell you that every last one > of them could compartmentalize their mind enough to keep a blank > expression while knifing the guy next to them. They'd be real good > at Occlumency. Teenagers are supposed to be more like Harry, bundles > of emotion and hormones who wear their hearts on their sleeves. It's > what a teenager is. I have enough experience with detached teens to > know that being that way is a real bad idea. Um, I would agree that Snape does lose a lot of control (though according to this line of thought that seems to be a good sign), but I, too, am a little uncomfortable with the idea that all teenagers are supposed to be one way and if they aren't it's a bad sign. All the kids do not act exactly the way Harry does in OotP, and I imagine I'd be pretty good at Occlumency if I were a witch--I don't think that makes me a sociopath. (And I don't find ways to make the lives of people I don't like miserable.) It sounds like part of the problem with the kids you're talking about isn't that they are compartmentalizing but that they are numb. If you don't empathize with another person, you can murder them without needing to compartmentalize your emotions. Compartmentalizing can be a step to committing horrible acts, but sometimes people who can cover their emotions are mistrusted unfairly too. And if detachment is always dangerous, I guess that Vipassana meditation I spent so much time learning was a bad idea.;-) > Furthermore, in the mugglenet interview JKR actually says that in a > way Harry is better off with not being great at occulmency because it > means he isn't as cut off from his emotions as Draco is. tells me > that the skill of Occlumency isn't often a skill of the incredibly > moral. She also says he's in some ways "too damaged" to do it and gives Dumbledore the skill, so I wouldn't want to go too far in assuming that Occlumency=evil. These kinds of skills just tend to change for plot purposes. I'm sure Hermione could learn Occlumency, for instance. Cloaking your mind from someone prying into it sounds like a skill I'd want to have. It's not what Harry is about, but I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. >>Phoenixgod2000: > Not true, his lessons are used in almost every book by Harry and Co. > I don't think he endangers students for the most part, guys like > Draco endanger themselves by not listening him because they think > they know better. Harry often doesn't listen in class either--most kids don't at one time or another. After third year I think Draco listens in Hagrid's class every second. It's kind of a joke in OotP--"What did he say?" There's a reason that disaster happens in Hagrid's class. I'm very relieved to say that I think JKR doesn't think Hagrid is a good teacher and makes this canon. The Trio defends his teaching when a person they don't like attacks him, but privately usually agrees with the criticism. Harry himself describes Hagrid's classes as dangerous. Grubbly-Plank is a better teacher, even according to Harry. Luna says Ravenclaws see him as a joke. When Hagrid isn't teaching most of the school is happy to have a substitute. The skrewts are Hagrid's personal project he's using class time to work on. In sixth year taking Hagrid's class isn't even a question, and in that book, for the first time, Harry stands up to Hagrid about making Harry feel guilty about his class. So yeah, I think Snape's behavior in class is inexcusable, but in some ways Hagrid is bad in the opposite way from Snape--neither man is above imo embarassing displays where he sinks to the level of a student and takes personal shots. The arc of Hagrid's storyline begins with a disaster on his first day, and then constant tension as Harry wishes he were a better teacher than he is and sees he's not respected by the rest of the school as a teacher. Finally they all drop his class. Granted none of them seem to want to work with animals in the future, but it seems like they also all know they don't like the class. Getting into the personal area, it may be hard not to just substitute whatever teachers remind us of these guys. I've had snarky, sarcastic teachers and gotten along with them--but I don't think I could respect any teacher who pulled that "oops, I dropped your potion" trick on Harry or picked on him the first day. It's embarassing. Likewise I've had teachers like Hagrid, and they, too, are "seen through" by kids. The kids' in the class are called upon to help Hagrid out a lot, and many have little patience for him. Ron's been on the receiving end of an injury from one of Hagrid's animals and got the same response--it was his fault. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 17:14:42 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:14:42 -0000 Subject: Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty / Who may survive the series. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140291 > > Alla: > >Oh, Jen I wonder about Snape al the time :-). So, here is what I am > > wondering at the moment. Are you sure that Tom is Snape's canon > > opposite? Couldn't it be that those two just represent the > > different faces the Evil can assume? > > Jen: The parallel is lost, though! I'm not very knowledgeable about > mechanics of literature, but it's interesting that the 'admirable' > Tom Riddle was trusted by everyone except Dumbledore, and the greasy- > git Snape was trusted by no one else but. It doesn't fit that nice > parallel to have Snape be evil, too :). Maybe it was just > coincidence on JKR's part, yet trust is a very big issue in > Potterverse. Alla: Oh, true, then the parallel is lost of course. But I was questioning the existence of such parallel in the first place, or more like comparison, I am not sure. I think some parallels which we assumed existed had been squashed by JKR. For example parallel between Harry and Neville I thought was squashed quite neatly by JKR's answer to the FAQ poll and what more importantly by HBP where Neville basically became a non-existent entity. Of course nothing stops him from playing important role in book 7, I suppose. It is basically the same to me as much brought up look of revulsion and hatred on Snape face when he kills Albus and Harry hating himself when he feeds Albus that potion. Is it a parallel, a comparison, or a false parallel, where one does what is right and another what is easy, while having exactly the same feelings? You know what I am inclined to believe of course, but both of the possibilities could come true of course. > > > Alla: > > LOL! You see I can call such person not just "very mean", > > but "evil", maybe not the same caliber, but definitely evil, so > > with me, it is just JKR showed us one more act of such evil person. > > Jen: You'll laugh at me Alla, but I didn't understand you felt that > way. Snape inspires so many different emotions and thoughts, and my > bar for evil is different. But I'd rather debate it now & have the > chance to disagree than read the series 5 years from now with the > outcome a known quantity--we're the lucky ones. Alla: Hmmm, of course I won't laugh at you, but I AM annoyed with myself. I guess my writing skills are even more abismal than I thought. :-) Just out of curiosity, how did you think I felt about Snape's attitude towards Harry and Neville? ( If you could reply off list, I would appreciate it, since I suppose the answer could get OT easily) I thought that I was being a parrot on this subject too often. ;) But I am going to try and clarify again . No, prior to HBP I did not think of Snape as evil of the same caliber as Voldemort of course. I think HBP broadened my horizons significantly though. You know, I think that maybe I am arguing semantics since I am thinking of the concept of Evil in Russian and I tend to think of mean person as a bit more of " annoying", something which could be overcome quite easily. So, I guess the best way to describe what I felt about Snape as a teacher would be using "everyday evil" expression ( thank you, Nora). But I also felt that he was loyal to the Light, so I thought of him as evil person with redemptive qualities, with at least some ability to do the right thing. But you are so right that we are the lucky ones to debate it now,wile the series are still work in progress. It is most definitely a pleasure arguing with you. :-) > Jen: That moment > when Snape's face contorted in rage and pain was very poignant to me > because he had just killed the only person who fully trusted him and > forgave his past, and he'd thrown it away. Even if he threw it away > by following orders, it was still his Unbreakable Vow that led to > that moment. I saw remorse there, too. (Not for James, though ). Alla: I hope you are right , Jen, I REALLY hope you are right. I want to see a lot of remorse and a lot of pain from Snape if he is to survive the series. :-) Now, on the subject of surviving the series I am sure this was brought up by someone, but I don't remember whom - apologies. I used to think that JKR wishes Happy birthdays to good guys only, now of course I am not so sure about it. :-) But someone on Fiction Alley brought up the idea that the Happy Birthdays are wished to people who survived the series, since Dumbledore and Sirius Black are no on the list. Of course I would be very tempted to agree with this speculation - since all the characters I love are on the list. The only argument against it would be that all Weasleys are wished Happy Birthday and it is very unlikely that she won't kill at least one of them from such large family. But who knows, right? Maybe she loves Weasleys so much that she will let them all live. And of course IMO it is also possible that Harry will survive ( not necessarily, but possible). So, going back to the subject of Snape - he is on the calendar, right? So if this speculation is to be believed, then Snape will survive, I guess. > houyhnhnm: In other > words, those who are most upset by the Snapes of this world are those > who have the most Snape-like qualities themselves. Alla: Very interesting. Magpie: > Getting into the personal area, it may be hard not to just substitute > whatever teachers remind us of these guys. Alla: It is likely and reasonable, but not necessarily at all, IMO, if I were to judge based upon myself. I mentioned it couple of times - I NEVER, ever had a teacher like Snape, not even in law school, as incredible as it may sounds :-) ( and I don't mean strict, even very strict teacher, I had plenty of those). I mean a teacher who took a personal revenge on me for some reason. And still I cannot stand what he does in classroom. JMO of course, Alla. From quigonginger at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 17:39:49 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:39:49 -0000 Subject: Filk: It's All About Fungi Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140292 It's All About Fungi to the tune of "Walking on Sunshine" by Katrina and the Waves To Jason, with best wishes Young Neville Longbottom, preparing for his first year at Hogwarts, peruses his new texts. Although most are confusing or intimidating, he finds "1000 Magical Herbs and Fungi" to be a great read. Elated by his newfound knowledge, he sings: I used to think I was just hopeless, and books were a bore, But now I have found this great textbook by Phyllida Spore. Now every time I go in the garden, I dig in the ground, 'Cause I can't believe all the plants that are lurking around. It's all about fungi (whoa-oh) It's all about fungi (whoa-oh) It's all about fungi (whoa-oh) And how 'bout those herbs! They're allright now, hey how 'bout those herbs! I used to think mushrooms were toadstools, now I know that's not true, And I used to think hellebore was an Icelandic fondue. Now I know asphodel isn't that which makes hem'roids go 'way, And I'll never fear shrivelfigs, spiting what Gran has to say. It's all about fungi (whoa-oh) It's all about fungi (whoa-oh) It's all about fungi (whoa-oh) And how 'bout those herbs! They're allright now, hey how 'bout those herbs! Oh, yeah, hey, how 'bout those herbs! It's all about fungi. It's all about fungi. They are alive, they are my love, I'm in an an herbal atmosphere. They are alive, they are my love, I'm in an an herbal atmosphere. I got fungi, baby, oh, oh, yeah, I got fungi, baby, oh! It's all about fungi (whoa-oh) It's all about fungi (whoa-oh) It's all about fungi (whoa-oh) And how 'bout those herbs! hey, all right now, And how 'bout those herbs! I say it, say it, say it again, now And how 'bout those herbs! hey, yeah, now (fade to end) Ginger, who had trouble finding inspiration for this one for some reason. From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Sep 16 17:33:31 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:33:31 -0000 Subject: Face it, there is a reward for being nice (was Re: Sadistic Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140293 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ellecain" > > So what I dont understand, is how come Hagrid is off the hook for > endangering students with little care for how much they learn? > Just because he is nice and friendly doesnt make him less culpable. Well, yes, it DOES make him less culpable. Not, it's true, in the sense of legal culpability, or even in the sense of casuistic moral culpability (using casuistic in the positive sense of arguing cases of conscience). But, in the world of social, cultural, and personal actions, nice people DO get breaks. That may not seem fair when viewed objectively, but the personal and social world is not objective. In the real world of real interactions, or even in the routine world of fictional interactions, people are not lawyers arguing from legal definitions of liability nor are they Jesuits concerned with determining applications of universal moral principles in complicated specific situations. In the real world, people are emotional and instinctive creatures who naturally regard nice people one way and mean people another way. It's just part of being human. And most of the time it's completely unproblematic. If you want an argument from fairness, then consider that it isn't easy being nice, and therefore it only stands to reason that nice people are accorded a reward in most situations -- that reward being that they get breaks not given to mean people. So, the fact that Hagrid gets a break is perfectly understandable and nothing to be either surprised or concerned about. He's nice and he get's the reward for being so -- that is to say he gets a break that Snape is not given because Snape, in the world of cultural and emotional interactions, doesn't deserve it. > And here we have antisocial Snape who saves students lives routinely > and teaches Potions very well, but he is attacked for the simple > reason that he is not a nice man. > Doesnt make sense to me. > But the fact that he is not a nice man is NOT simple. It is, within the world of realistic social and personal interactions, a profound determinent of how someone like Snape is judged in any given situation. Once again, that is perfectly natural and to be expected. Mean people aren't given the same consideration and allowances that nice people are -- they haven't earned that kind of consideration. That is one of the bedrock principles of social and personal interaction in the real world. Nice people are forgiven for minor failings, while the failings of mean people are held against them to the letter of the law and the rulebook. Once again, if you want an argument from justice, it isn't easy being nice and there is an appropriate reward in the social world for people who make the effort. If mean people want the same consideration, they simply have to try harder to reform their ways. That may not hold water in a court of law or in a philosophical debate, but it holds plenty of water in the world of interactions and attitudes within which people move most of the time. The effect of this is readily apparent at Hogwarts. Hagrid has no NEWT level students -- which one would expect would irritate the other teachers and distress the headmaster. However, Hagrid is nice and kind and well-liked, and so he probably gets a pass -- likely spiced with some advice and encouragement to concentrate less on skrewts and more on kneazles. To give an even sharper example, Hagrid was implicated in the death of a fellow student through carelessness. He was punished legally, but he was also given a job and home at Hogwarts and no one at the school now seems to give the incident much weight, even if the Ministry still does. Why? Dumbledore's patronage is important, of course, but also the fact that Hagrid is kind and nice and well-liked undoubtedly played a crucial role. Snape, on the other hand, is accused by a student who frankly and unabashadly hates him of deliberately and cold-bloodedly murdering the headmaster and casting his lot in with the DEs. The instant response from many of Snape's colleagues who have known him, in some cases, more than twenty years? "Yeah, I believe that,I never did like the ba****d! Somebody like that just can't be trusted." Which is utterly to be expected. If Snape wanted more consideration, he should have been a nicer person. Now, I grant that it may be psychologically impossible for Snape to be nice -- it may even be detrimental to his function. That does not change the fact that, as a mean person, he is not, within any kind of realistic social and cultural order, entitled to the consideration that someone like Hagrid recieves. Lupinlore From redwooddawn at hotmail.com Fri Sep 16 17:57:03 2005 From: redwooddawn at hotmail.com (redwooddawn) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:57:03 -0000 Subject: Ancient Magic / The Trio In-Reply-To: <71beed6b05091603456f81b212@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140294 > > Guru again: > After we figure out the part runes are going to play, we also have to > figure out where the arithmancy comes in. redwooddawn: Arithmancy will be the perfect tie-in for the "power of the three" - some years ago I read a book called Initiation, by Elisabeth Haich(?) that discussed sacred geometry, and how important three is. I don't recall the details, but three was the great balancer, and a great force of stability. I'm sure there are plenty of you who could add to this.......arithmancy will likely validate for Harry, Ron and Hermione that the three are the one (a la Holy Trinity, the Fates)who will defeat LV. redwooddawn. From lealess at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 18:42:43 2005 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:42:43 -0000 Subject: Face it, there is a reward for being nice (was Re: Sadistic Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140295 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > That is one of the bedrock principles of social and personal > interaction in the real world. Nice people are forgiven for minor > failings, while the failings of mean people are held against them > to the letter of the law and the rulebook. Once again, if you want > argument from justice, it isn't easy being nice and there is an > appropriate reward in the social world for people who make the > effort. If mean people want the same consideration, they simply > have to try harder to reform their ways. That may not hold water > in a court of law or in a philosophical debate, but it holds plenty > of water in the world of interactions and attitudes within which > people move most of the time. Frankly, in my world, it is the aggressive, obnoxious, stubborn, or cut-throat people who get what they want, no matter how many people they walk on or how many falsehoods they tell. It is the nice people who get dumped on or overlooked. I've seen this in my family, in school, at work, in national politics... I don't like it, but it is a fact. And in the wizarding world, look at Dolores Umbridge. She got quite far without being nice (though she wasn't quite a Stalin). Umbridge was taken down thanks to kids, but she is still around, in some Ministry capacity presumably. Meanwhile, nice Arthur Weasley is working in some anonymous position and getting attacked by snakes. His son, Percy, feels he has to distance himself from the father in order to succeed. So... can I move to your world? lealess From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Sep 16 19:40:48 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:40:48 -0000 Subject: The AK itself, / Keep Harry Horcrux Free Challenge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140296 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "saraquel_omphale" wrote: ibchawz: > >The logical flow of events is as > > follows: > > 1. LV murders James Potter. > > 2. LV murders Lily Potter (Or rather Lily sacrifices herself as > > opposed to chosing to step aside). > > 3. LV attempts to murder Harry Potter, but the spell rebounds > > due to Lily's sacrifice. > > Harry would not have the scar at this point in time because LV > > has not attempted to murder him yet. The scar is a by-product > > of the rebounded AK. Saraquel: > Preparing to bang head against desk thoroughly as well as iron > hands as this is my fourth post today! Never mind it's gone > midnight here, so I'm off to bed in a mo. In GoF Priori > Incantatem, there is no extra spell to account for the rebounded AK > curse, implying that Lily was AKed and died and Harry got his scar > at one and the same time. Now do you see my problem? Geoff: If you care to read the thread "Questions about the Priori Incantatem sequence in GOF" which began at message 82457, this point was discussed in some detail there. It might be worth following up to save your head and the desk. :-) From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 20:07:07 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:07:07 -0000 Subject: Voldie's Wand and other details In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140297 darqali: > Asked before, and got no answer, so trying again: > > *How did LV regain his wand?* > ...So possibly, even *probably*, Pettigrew was present at Godric's > Hollow. He could have retrieved LV's wand {and the intended Horcrux > object as well} after the house "blew up" and LV lost his body... > > ...But then Pettigrew fakes his own death {strange parallel} by > "blowing up" a street full of Muggles, leaving behind his severed > finger to indicate he was killed, thus ensuring no one will seek him > in hiding and framing the one person who could have fingered > {*snicker*} him {Peter} as the traitor ... > ...*So how did Peter Pettigrew manage to keep possession of his own > wand, much less hang on to the wand of LV for his master? Amiable Dorsai: Simple: He stuck it in his pocket. Clothes transform with an animagus, else McGonagall would appear naked in front of her third-year classes when she demonstrates her ability. Her glasses transform as well--her cat form has markings that resemble her glasses around her eyes. Rita Skeeter's beetle has similar markings. Since clothes and glasses transform with the animagus, why not wands? So Peter could easily have kept Voldy's wand on his person all those years. Incidentally, it's not obvious to me that he has his own wand--we don't see him use a wand in PoA, and when he kills Cedric, he used Voldy's wand to do it. So what happened to Peter's wand, I wonder? darqali: > As for the time of Hagrid's arrival at the Dursely's: > > Dumbledore had to learn of the events at Godric's Hollow, and decide > what to do; then Hagrid had to be summoned by Dumbledore and > assigned his task; Hagrid had to go to Sirius Black to borrow his > motorcycle... Amiable Dorsai: No, Hagrid ran into Sirius at Godric's Hollow. Sirius was already on his way there after he found Peter's hiding place abandoned. I see the sequence of events something like this: Late Monday night, or very early Tuesday morning, Voldemort shows up at Godric's Hollow with Peter Pettigrew in tow. He blows open the door and he and James duel. Lily runs to another room with Harry, and somehow contacts Dumbledore, probably by Patronus messenger, then has her own encounter with Voldemort and is killed. Voldemort makes the mistake of trying to kill Harry and is ripped from his body. Peter, his world destroyed, grabs Voldemort's wand and flees. Some time later, Dumbledore recieves the message, and has a problem--Voldemort has somehow cracked the Fidelius Charm. At this point, he probably can't wrap his mind around the idea of Sirius Black betraying James Potter, so he must conclude that LV has figured out another way to bust a Fidelius--that means the Longbottoms are in danger. It's probably too late for the Potters, but there's a chance he can still save the Longbottoms. He dispatches the first member of the Order he can find--Hagrid--to Godric's Hollow, and he goes to wherever the Longbottom's are hidden. He waits around at the Longbottom's, ready for Voldemort to show up, until he gets an astonishing message from Hagrid: James, Lily, and Tom Riddle are dead--Harry is still alive! Oh, and by the way, a bunch of Muggles and probably some wizards, Aurors maybe, are starting to arrive. What should he do? OK, now what, Albus? Harry must be the Prophecy Child, that much is obvious. Harry must be protected from any stray Death Eaters, that's also obvious. What to do about that? Not so obvious. Whatever else, he mustn't let Harry get into the hands of the Ministry, the Ministry is full of Voldemort supporters. He sends another message to Hagrid, telling him not to let anyone else get their hands on Harry. In fact, grab Harry and get lost while he (Dumbledore), figures this out. In the meantime, Sirius Black has arrived. He and Hagrid argue over custody of Harry for a while. Sirius gives in. He really doesn't want to fight Hagrid, and he doesn't need to be lumbered with Harry while he goes rat hunting. He lends Hagrid the motorcycle. Hagrid buzzes off and Sirus makes the second biggest mistake of his life: going off after Peter without telling anyone else why. All this has probably happened before sunrise. Hagrid finds a place to hide (Hogwarts?) for a day while Dumbledore checks into things, determines that Harry can be protected by his mother's sacrifice (How does he know this? That's bothered me for a while.) and prepares to drop Harry at the Dursleys. Once it gets dark, he sends a message to Hagrid: Meet me at number four, Privet Drive, Little Whinging, Surrey. And the rest is literature. There are a couple of problems: How does Dumbledore, or anyone else who was not there, know what happened? What clues McGonagall to go to Little Whinging? But on the whole, I don't think the "missing 24" is an issue. Amiable Dorsai From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Sep 16 20:33:59 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:33:59 -0000 Subject: Face it, there is a reward for being nice (was Re: Sadistic Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140298 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > Snape, on the other hand, is accused by a student who frankly and > unabashadly hates him of deliberately and cold-bloodedly murdering the headmaster and casting his lot in with the DEs. The instant response from many of Snape's colleagues who have known him, in some cases, more than twenty years? "Yeah, I believe that,I never did like the ba****d! Somebody like that just can't be trusted." Pippin: I'm having a hard time finding that reaction in canon. Here are the reactions of the adults: Hagrid: "Snape kill Dumbledore -- don' be stupid, Harry. Wha's made yeh say that?" "I saw it happen." "Yeh couldn't have." Madame Pomfrey: bursts into tears Professor McGonagall: She stared at him for a moment, then swayed alarmingly; Madame Pomfrey, who seemed to have pulled herself together, ran forward, conjuring a chair from thin air, which she pushed under McGonagall. "Snape," repeated McGonagall faintly, falling into the chair. "We all wondered...but he trusted...always...*Snape*...I can't believe it..." Tonks: "But Dumbledore swore he was on our side!" Lupin: "Snape was a highly accomplished Occlumens. We all knew that." "We all wanted more help, we were glad to think Snape was on his way." Slughorn: "Snape!" ejaculated Slughorn, who looked the most shaken, pale and sweating. "Snape! I taught him! I thought I knew him!" That they sent for his help against the Death Eaters and were all glad to think that they were going to get it does not argue that he was untrusted. And nobody mentions the way he treats students as a reason they shouldn't have trusted him, though McGonagall says they all wondered considering his history. Anyway, Snape is on extended sabbatical to say the least. The Snape's a bully plot is over, we've heard the end though the beginning is still to unfold. And his students have utterly failed to have their spirits crushed or suffer any of the dire effects predicted by various listies. Snape did comparatively little bullying of Harry this year, (there's no mention of how every class is a torture) , and none at all of Neville, AFAWK. Neville is pretty much bully proof now, I think. He's learned to appreciate himself for who he is instead of who he thought he should be. Odd how humility is the real secret of self-esteem. And it didn't take an apology from anybody. Pippin From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 20:34:35 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:34:35 -0000 Subject: The AK itself, / Keep Harry Horcrux Free Challenge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140299 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "saraquel_omphale" wrote: > > ibchawz: > > > > Since hand bandages seem to be in short supply, I'll just grab the > > nearest lamp and prepare to repeated bash my head. This one is > > relatively easy to work out. The logical flow of events is as > > follows: > > > > 1. LV murders James Potter. > > 2. LV murders Lily Potter (Or rather Lily sacrifices herself as > > opposed to chosing to step aside). > > 3. LV attempts to murder Harry Potter, but the spell rebounds due > > to Lily's sacrifice. > > > > Harry would not have the scar at this point in time because LV has > > not attempted to murder him yet. The scar is a by-product of the > > rebounded AK. > Saraquel: > Preparing to bang head against desk thoroughly as well as iron hands > as this is my fourth post today! Never mind it's gone midnight > here, so I'm off to bed in a mo. In GoF Priori Incantatem, there is > no extra spell to account for the rebounded AK curse, implying that > Lily was AKed and died and Harry got his scar at one and the same > time. Now do you see my problem? bboyminn: I think the real problem is that we don't know and can't predict what a Rebounded-AK would look like. I suspect there are experts in the field who could indentify most abstract spells that could be redrawn/recalled from a wand, but Harry is certainly not one of them. For example, what does a Jelly-Leggs Curse look like when recalled from a wand? Next to impossible to predict. We do know that from a straight forward AK, we see the 'body' of the dead person. Yet, a rebounded, repelled, blocked AK has never happened in the recorded history of wizard-kind. Even if you were an expert you would have trouble predicting that one. Harry didn't die, so his body wouldn't appear. Voldemort's body was destroyed by the rebound, but /HE/ didn't actually die either. So what would appear? Some green vapor? A twinkle of green light? Nothing at all? We don't know, probably NO ONE knows, so Harry could possibly be expect to indentify that particular spell when whatever abstaction it produced appeared. Again, think of other spells that don't have solid indentifiable images when recalled from a wand. What does a stunning spell look like? We don't know and can't predict. Like I said, and expert in this area may be able to identify the more abstract spells, but it would generally be impossible for Harry and therefore the narrator to identify them. It's possible the Rebounded-AK did appear in some abstract form, and Harry simply didn't recognise it. So, overal, I don't think it's a problem. Just a thought. STeve/bboyminn From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 20:52:28 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:52:28 -0000 Subject: Face it, there is a reward for being nice (was Re: Sadistic Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140300 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Snape did comparatively little bullying of Harry this year, (there's > no mention of how every class is a torture) , and none at all > of Neville, AFAWK. Neville is pretty much bully proof now, I think. > He's learned to appreciate himself for who he is instead of who > he thought he should be. Odd how humility is the real secret of > self-esteem. And it didn't take an apology from anybody. Why, Pippin--is that 'no harm no foul'? That's a dangerous and delicate road to walk down. :) We can argue that Neville has not been permanently damaged, in part due to Neville's own innate character and resources for coping. Does that diminish the moral wrongness of Snape's actions towards him? If we wanted to say 'no harm' at everything that didn't result in permanent physical injury, then most all of the bullying in the books goes off the table, poof. I suppose that Snape himself might remain on the table as an example of a damaged and harmed person, except there's a fairly complex and unclear path of causality, there. At least there's no abuse of authority (JKR's terms and mine) in his schooldays cases. That we know of, of course. I'm just very, very wary of the "It turned out okay for everyone--we don't need to think about the 'offenses' as meaningful" line of argument. -Nora leaves everyone to figure out their own preferred examples From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 20:57:41 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:57:41 -0000 Subject: The AK itself, / Body and Soul In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140301 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "saraquel_omphale" wrote: > Saraquel replying to Elyse, Raie, Ceridwen and Sandy > ...edited... > > Elyse wrote: > >In PoA Lupin says if your soul is sucked out you become "an > >empty shell" devoid of thought, feeling, you simply exist. So this > >indicates not only that the mind and personality is a function of > >the but also that your magical power - the ability to harness magic > >out of ether or whatever - still resides in you. Only now that you > >have lost your mind you cannot use it. > > Saraquel: > I can't quite follow you here, are you saying that because Lupin did > not actually specify that you lost your magical powers as well, that > they therefore must still be in you? If so, I'm not totally > convinced about that as evidence. > > ...edited... bboyminn: I'm just going to touch on this one issue and see if I can bring some perspective to it. Let's use a vehicle analogy. The soul is the 'pilot' of the earthly vehicle-the body. What good is a vehicle without a pilot? If there is no 'Self' to give indentity and purpose to the body, then indeed the body is an 'empty' shell; a meaningless vehicle without purpose or self-awareness. Much like a fanastic car that has no driver; as nice as it may be, it's just a bucket of expensive bolts, if no one exists who can drive it. So, memories mean nothing because there is no 'Self' to give meaning to those memories. Thoughts are nothingness because there is no 'Self' to form them. Magical power may still exist in the body, but like a car without a driver, they are all potential that can never be realized. To complicate matters farther, it's not as simple as Black and White, not a simple as alive or dead, certainly not as simple as soul-full or not soul-full. The Dementors can create Body without Soul. When the AK-Curse rebound from Harry to Voldemort, soulfull-Self was created without body. Plus ghosts, have lost their body, but still cling to their earthly Selves. They have earthly identity and earthly personality, and logically still have soul, but they have lost their body and live in the twilight of Spirit; neither body/earthly self nor pure soul. Of course, it is just my personal perspective, but I think the Soul is very much divorced from the earthly body. The soul identifies with the body as long as it occupies it, and perhaps for a brief period after, but that connection to the 'vehicle' doesn't last very long. It may carry spiritual lessons from lifetime to lifetime, but any sense of the body is lost. This is part of my belief that Harry is not a Horcrux because of the 'bits' of Voldemort that were transferred to him. Those talents and skills are part of the earthly vehicle we call Tom/Voldemort, and are not tie to pure soul which doesn't cling to things that are unique to the body/vehicle. That and the fact that Dumbledore would have to be the stupidest person who ever lived to have not considered the possibility and, as the book make it appear, rejected it. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From msbeadsley at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 21:36:03 2005 From: msbeadsley at yahoo.com (msbeadsley) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:36:03 -0000 Subject: Keep Harry Horcrux Free Challenge! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140302 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002" wrote: > I can't believe it but I have actually come full circle during the > course of this debate. Only last week, my wife and I were laughing > the naivety of those who believed Harry wasn't a Horcrux. Now, I > genuinely believe that he isn't. I think the facts are these; I think Harry is a horcrux. It's just the conclusion I came to after my third read-through of HBP, my fourth read-through of OoP, and exposure to the ideas offered and challenged and worked and reworked in this forum. (I don't think anyone who disagrees with me on the subject is naive or anything else. As a matter of fact, they could be right. They just came to a different conclusion; and it's going to be quite a while (squelch impulse to bite nails here) before any of us are shown to be right or wrong on the subject. But is it time yet for a POLL?) However, I have never believed that Voldemort intentionally made Harry a horcrux, so I have snipped all of your arguments around Voldemort's horcrux-related *intentions*. > JKR continually claims that the AK rebounded onto Harry, so it is > common sense to believe her!!! Wait. Did you mean to say the AK rebounded onto Harry? I thought it rebounded *off* of Harry and *onto* Voldemort, otherwise he who walked away (or was carried, sorry) and he who didn't would be reversed, wouldn't they? > When Voldemort was strong enough he realised that he couldn't be > picky, and just had to choose a Horcrux to make the number up to 7. > So he chose Nagini - which is why he looks so snake like!! But didn't Voldemort's features change gradually, becoming more and more distorted with each new horcrux, with the eventual result being a pronounced resemblance to a snake? (My own theory about why Voldemort has a snakey face changes from it having to do with his Slytherin blood to the notion that as he loses more and more of his soul, he becomes less and less human/mammalian, and regresses evolutionarily into something more primitive and cold-blooded. I wonder, if he continued to make horcrux after horcrux, if his arms would atrophy and fall off and his legs fuse into something long and tapered and sinuous...) > Yes, the problem of Harry's Voldemort-like powers remain. But it is > still possible that the rebounded AK caused a transference of power. It's entirely possible. I just doubt it, considering that this would mean that not only was Lily's sacrifice and Harry's survival of an AK something hitherto unseen in the magical world, but that yet another completely unprecedented (as far as we know) event took place in the form of Harry ending up with some of Voldemort's powers. Horcruxes are (somewhat) known magic, and the unintentional transfer of even a mini-horcrux-sized piece of of Voldie's soul into Harry would explain several things (parseltongue, the connection, maybe even the voice Harry heard in his head 4th year urging him to resist the DADA teacher's Imerio!) without the need to grasp after yet more vague, unexplained magic. > At the moment, I am very interested in Snape's actions during the > duelling club in COS. He suspected Harry was the parseltongue - BUT > WHY?? If you are against Horcrux Harry, then it suggests that Snape > knows something about the AK curse (and he knows as much about the > Dark Arts as anyone) that would suggest a transference of power. If > you are for Horcrux Harry, then you could argue that Snape knew that > Voldemort has attempting to make Harry a Horcrux. Taking the Grand Tour entire (reading books 1-6 contiguously in order) is on my agenda real soon now, but for the moment I cannot find (and I looked) my copy of CoS. The best I can do from the Lexicon's guide to that chapter is to remind you that Snape's "shrewd and calculating" look at Harry *followed* Harry's commands to Draco's conjured snake (which, if people here are correct, immediately followed Snape's whispered suggestion to Draco). If Snape did indeed suggest the snake spell as a test, why would the *result* (of Harry speaking parseltongue) leave him "shrewd (I suggest this should be *shrewed*, since it's Snape ) and calculating"? I would imagine the "shrewd and calculating" would more likely coincide with the idea of testing Harry. Besides, even if Snape suggested the snake spell, I can easily imagine it being for one of several other reasons, one being simple homage to Slytherin. And the notion that the snake test (if it was one) had to be inspired by wondering if Harry were a horcrux also strikes me as only one of several possible interpretations as well. Although it strikes me as least likely, for all we know the story of Harry and the snake at the zoo could have gotten back to Snape. Maybe Mrs. Figg was there (or Mr. Tibbles hangs out at the zoo and reports back to her). > Brothergib (about 85% sure that Harry isn't a Horcrux!!) Sandy aka msbeadsley, 86.99% sure Harry *is* a horcrux. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 22:19:15 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:19:15 -0000 Subject: Sadistic!Snape? (was:Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140303 > >>vmonte: > > > It's beyond me how you can say that you don't understand how > > > folks get the idea that Snape is deeply horrible and sadistic > > > when the author plainly states this as fact in her books... > > > > >>Betsy Hp: > > Probably because the books don't plainly state it at all. > >>Amiable Dorsai: > Other than, you know, picking out a student for "special attention" > during his very first Potions class... Betsy Hp: I've remarked on this before, but I think Snape had a very deliberate reason for his opening gambit with Harry in PS/SS. Remember, Harry's celebrity status, at this point, is huge. Harry is hero-worshipped to such an extent that Gryffindor breaks into a gleeful chant when he gets sorted into their house, and a teacher actually faints when he gets Harry in his classroom. Snape, I'm sure, noticed all of this. It's canon now that there *was* a thought within certain circles that Harry may become a Dark Lord himself, and that Snape was aware of such theories. And Harry does bare an uncanny physical resemblance to James, who did not handle his popularity well (from Snape's POV anyway). Snape's opening lecture in his very first potions class struck me as a well-rehearsed show. I'm quite sure he'd been doing it for years. I'm also quite sure that he peppered his new students with difficult, to near impossible questions. It makes sense to me, because the questions establish two things: 1)It tells students that they must go beyond a mere surface reading of their assigments if they wish to impress Snape, and 2)It tells them that they'd better pay attention to what he says in class. I think Snape chose Harry for *all* the questions with deliberate reason. He was telling the other students in Harry's class that Snape was not bowled over by the "great Harry Potter" and neither should they be. He was also playing the part of a former Death Eater. But most importantly to him, I think, Snape was testing Harry's character, and I think (unfortunately and incorrectly) found reason to worry. Harry cheeked back to him. I'm sure Snape took this to mean that Harry was like his father in more than just looks. (The ironic thing is that I think Snape was wrong. Harry's not much like James at all. In fact I think his refusal to submit was rather Snape-like.) But I believe that exchange shaped Snape's treatment of Harry over the rest of the books. > >>Amiable Dorsai: > ...insulting an orphan's father... Betsy Hp: Whenever Snape brought up James it was usually (IIRC) when Harry was doing something colossally stupid, like sneaking into Hogsmeade when there was a mass murderer out for his blood. Snape, with good reason (especially after reading some of Sirius's "advice"), was trying to turn Harry away from emulating his father. Snape chose a piss-poor way of going about it, I grant. But again, I see a reason for his behavior. Enjoyment of Harry's suffering wasn't it, IMO. > >>Amiable Dorsai: > ...insulting a student's looks... Betsy Hp: And by doing so kept his Seeker out of detention and on the field. Again it was with reason rather than specifically looking to insult Hermione. Doesn't he do something similar when a Slytherin hexes one of the Gryffindor Chaser's eyebrows? Snape is protecting his team, which leads to... > >>Amiable Dorsai: > ...playing favorites... Betsy Hp: While not a good thing for a teacher to do, I'm not sure how this is sadistic behavior. > >>Amiable Dorsai: > ...casting aspersions on a student's intelligence to another > teacher in front of the student and his classmates... Betsy Hp: Again, not good behavior, but hardly sadistic. (McGonagall made sure everyone in Gryffindor house saw Neville as the house dunce. Why isn't she labeled sadistic?) > >>Amiable Dorsai: > ...making an unjustified criticism of another teacher to that > teacher's class... Betsy Hp: As McGonagall does with Trelawney? Again, not very sadistic, to my mind. > >>Amiable Dorsai: > ...threatening to poison a student's pet and then being abusive > after he's thwarted... Betsy Hp: Actually, I'd catagorize the toad incident as trying to vividly drive home the lesson that the potions the students are making are *supposed* to be consumed. Frankly, I think Snape was trying to reach Neville here. It didn't work, unfortunately. And taking five points for Hermione's cheating strikes me as something much less than abusive and certainly not sadistic. > >>Amiable Dorsai: > ...discouraging class participation from the best student in his > class... Betsy Hp: You mean making sure the class know-it-all doesn't take over his classroom as she's taken over so many others? Hermione is brilliant, but she tends to dominate whatever class she's in. (I believe there's at least one time where Harry notes that no one bothers trying to answer a question because they know Hermione's got it covered.) Snape knows she knows. He's interested in making sure (as a good teacher should, IMO) that the other students know the answer too. > >>Amiable Dorsai: > And then there's the time he tried to have the very souls of two > innocent men destroyed. Betsy Hp: You mean the mass-murderer and the teacher who helped him into the school where he nearly killed a student? Those innocent men? Shall we accuse Harry of sadism since he expressed a desire to see Sirius dead? > >>Amiable Dorsai: > Other than that, yes, he seems very jolly. Betsy Hp: No, not jolly. But not sadistic either. Which is what I was questioning in the first place. Is Snape a sadist? The text seems to say, no. > >>Lealess: > Honestly, Snape is not cut out to be a teacher. > Betsy Hp: I think he's an excellent teacher, myself. I just think he's of a certain (out of favor now unfortunately) sort. It's been discussed ad nauseum, but I don't see any evidence that any student suffered unduly in his classroom. And yes, that includes Neville. Neville who still has a pet toad and who doesn't seem all that afraid of Snape anymore, IMO. Frankly, McGonagall, who is of a similar mode, strikes me as scarier. Her punishments tend to include public humiliation. Snape takes you on personally, McGonagall makes sure you become a social pariah. I wouldn't cross either of them. But neither would I accuse either of them of being a sadist. They are both rather strict disciplinarians (and interestingly enough are both seen as top teachers at Hogwarts, per the books anyway) but that's about as far as I would go. > >>Pippin (message #140298): > > The Snape's a bully plot is over, we've heard the end though the > beginning is still to unfold. And his students have utterly failed > to have their spirits crushed or suffer any of the dire effects > predicted by various listies. > Betsy Hp: Exactly! While Harry still bears the scars of Umbridge's treatment. No, JKR knows how to write a sadist, and she didn't do so with Snape, IMO. Betsy Hp From msbeadsley at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 22:41:40 2005 From: msbeadsley at yahoo.com (msbeadsley) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:41:40 -0000 Subject: Faith in Snape; Was: What mistakes Dumbledore made? Re: Loyalty & Trust In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140304 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > Plain and simple, the *only* thing keeping Snape on the good side, > was Dumbledore's trust. Dumbledore was perfectly aware of this, > particularly when one or other questions this trust. That's why > Dumbledore kept saying "I trust Severus Snape" and refusing to > listen any bad word of him. Because he did not wish to lose this > soul who hung to goodness *only* on his trust. I think that choice > was a sign of DD's goodness and wisdom-- not a misjudgement -- no > matter where Snape's loyalties. This is the direction I am increasingly leaning in as well. To expand on this: I think there was *something* that spurred Snape's defection from Voldemort and that he presented it to Dumbledore and Dumbledore believed him and chose to believe *in* him; he didn't do that lightly. Once Dumbledore decided to be loyal to Severus Snape, that was it. He was constitutionally incapable of going back on that. (Harry's loyalty to Dumbledore has been shown again and again to be not only noble, but downright beneficial! Loyalty is a big deal, as illustrated by the deep interconnectedness of the Trio, right up there with courage, IMO.) The many examples we have seen of Snape grasping after respect and recognition seem to me also to support this: "Call me *Sir*" and it's "Professor" Snape; his eagerness to get that Order of Merlin in PoA. Dumbledore, a man asked repeatedly to become Minister of Magic, chose to offer respect and reciprocal loyalty to Severus Snape. I can't help but imagine that was quite a balm for Snape's (apparently) battered spirit/ego/etc.. The question we are left with is whether or not it simply stopped being enough. Every time I read a post saying that Dumbledore trusted Snape because of an Unbreakable Vow or because of a transferred life debt or something else that comes with a guarantee of some sort, I shake my head (pretty involuntarily). I think Dumbledore's words to Draco atop the tower support the idea that Dumbledore's M.O. was to believe in people because he thought it was the right thing to do and also because he believed it brought out the best in them. Dumbledore could not *know* that Draco wasn't going to flare up and aim his wand and carry out his assignment, but he offered him grace anyway. > If Snape wasn't worth that trust, the blame rests wholly on Snape's > shoulders, and not on Dumbledore's. I keep thinking of Snape and Dumbledore and the Prisoners' Dilemma, which is a classic game theory exercise in loyalty/altruism vs. betrayal/self-interest; info is available online, example at: http://tinyurl.com/8r4kb It boils down to whether or not either of any pair is smarter to chose cooperation or betrayal, absent any leverage or guarantee. I think Dumbledore chose to live his life as if it made sense to work for a world where this "dilemma" might pass into obscurity and obsolescence. Sandy aka msbeadsley, thinking there are worse titles than "Harry Potter and the Prisoner's Dilemma" From rbookworm46 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 22:41:52 2005 From: rbookworm46 at yahoo.com (rbookworm46) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:41:52 -0000 Subject: Ancient Magic / The Trio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140305 Pat: Isn't there something from one of the interviews where JKR says something about after Ron got his new wand that "all the elements were there between the three of them" (no, that's not an exact quote, just my memory of the interview) for something magical, power-wise? Bookworm: You might be thinking of JKR's discussion of wands in the Extra Stuff section of her website: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=18 Here is part of what she wrote: "Some time after I had given Harry his holly-and-phoenix wand I came across a description of how the Celts had assigned trees to different parts of the year and discovered that, entirely by coincidence, I had assigned Harry the `correct' wood for his day of birth. I therefore decided to give Ron and Hermione Celtic wand woods, too." Ravenclaw Bookworm From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Fri Sep 16 22:51:05 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:51:05 -0000 Subject: Keep Harry Horcrux Free Challenge! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140306 > > When Voldemort was strong enough he realised that he couldn't be > > picky, and just had to choose a Horcrux to make the number up to 7. So he chose Nagini - which is why he looks so snake like!! > > But didn't Voldemort's features change gradually, becoming more and > more distorted with each new horcrux, with the eventual result being a > pronounced resemblance to a snake? (My own theory about why Voldemort > has a snakey face changes from it having to do with his Slytherin > blood to the notion that as he loses more and more of his soul, he > becomes less and less human/mammalian, and regresses evolutionarily > into something more primitive and cold-blooded. I wonder, if he > continued to make horcrux after horcrux, if his arms would atrophy and > fall off and his legs fuse into something long and tapered and sinuous...) Yes, but if you read the chapter 'Lord Voldemort's Request' in HBP, you will find that it states that VOldemort had yet to possess his snakelike appearance, but rather he looked drawn with bloodshot eyes. If we consider how many Horcruxes he had made at this point - definitely the ring and the diary (via the Riddle murders), probably the locket and the chalice (during his time at Borgin and Burkes) and maybe the as yet identified Horcrux as well. So why wasn't he looking snakelike at this point. Only after making Nagini his last Horcrux (if DD is correct) did he develop his snakelike appearance. You could even suggest that this was a clue specifically planted by JKR!! > > > Yes, the problem of Harry's Voldemort-like powers remain. But it is > > still possible that the rebounded AK caused a transference of power. > > It's entirely possible. I just doubt it, considering that this would > mean that not only was Lily's sacrifice and Harry's survival of an AK > something hitherto unseen in the magical world, but that yet another > completely unprecedented (as far as we know) event took place in the > form of Harry ending up with some of Voldemort's powers. Horcruxes are > (somewhat) known magic, and the unintentional transfer of even a > mini-horcrux-sized piece of of Voldie's soul into Harry would explain > several things (parseltongue, the connection, maybe even the voice > Harry heard in his head 4th year urging him to resist the DADA > teacher's Imerio!) without the need to grasp after yet more vague, > unexplained magic. OK let us consider the AK spell. It is the only means of committing murder by magic that we know of. We also know that you have to kill to be able to split the soul. Therefore the AK is inextricably linked with soul splitting. There is also several instances of canon, suggesting that to perform an AK, you have to really, really mean it. Therefore perhaps the AK requires a transference of that hatred, that wish to destroy into the spell itself i.e. the very essence of the 'evil soul'. It is therefore perfectly logical to me that this power may be transferred if the AK can be blocked! > Brothergib From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 22:52:26 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:52:26 -0000 Subject: Snape/Harry coincidence? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140307 > >>Carol: > > > > Could the SS/PS and GoF passages I've quoted also be deliberately > > coincidental, the later recalling the earlier to create a > > parallel between Harry and Snape? > > > >>Jen: > > That's not to say I don't see a huge parallel between Harry and > Snape already. > > Harry identified more with Snape than James after viewing the > Pensieve scene. > > Then HBP comes along and there are *more* commonalities. Donna > mentions a good one, Harry's obsession with Draco as similar to > Snape's obsession with the Marauders. Harry learns from the HBP in > a way he never learned from Snape, and Hermione draws the > conclusion that Snape's DADA speech was similar in tone & style to > Harry's speeches about Voldemort. Last, but most important, both > have Dumbledore's trust, and that trust led to the parallel scenes > in the cave and on the tower. > Betsy Hp: The parallel between Snape and Harry is fascinating to me too. Something I noticed is that when Harry goes down to the lake at the end of OotP, feeling alone and depressed, he sits "behind a tangle of shrubs" (scholastic hardback p.855). Which echoed, to my mind, with young Severus sitting "in the dense shadows of a clump of bushes" (ibid p.644) in the pensieve scene. It's not an exact match wording wise, but there's still a picture of two fifth year boys, notably different from their peers, mirroring each other at this spot by the lake. It was also interesting to me that with Snape's potions book, "Ron had more difficulty deciphering the handwriting than Harry did," (HBP p.194). Harry really seems to relate to and maybe even understand the half-blood Prince in a way that Ron and Hermione don't. > >>Jen: > All that's left is finding out Snape loved Lily--Oh please, no, > that one is too much for me ;)! Regardless, I think Harry *will* > see Snape with Lily's eyes of compassion one day, and only then > will Harry (and readers) see him for exactly who he is. Betsy Hp: Heh. I can totally get behind Snape and Lily dating at some point. Though I think it might be more powerful (especially with JKR) if they were just friends. But yeah, that could well be the big shocker reveal that Harry has to deal with regarding his mother. ("But...but...She was supposed to be practically perfect in every way!") In some ways, by starting to embrace his inner-Slytherin, I think Harry may be getting primed for just such a reveal, a new take on Snape. Certainly his admiration for the Prince will help as well, I think. Though of course, the whole Snape killing Dumbledore thing is a huge roadblock to overcome, so the drama will still flow. Betsy Hp From lealess at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 22:53:33 2005 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:53:33 -0000 Subject: Sadistic!Snape? (was:Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140308 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: >> >>Amiable Dorsai: >> ...insulting a student's looks... >Betsy Hp: >And by doing so kept his Seeker out of detention and on the field. >Again it was with reason rather than specifically looking to insult >Hermione. I don't take the insult to Hermione's teeth too seriously. This is a school for witches and wizards, where a student can probably get hexed at any minute, or have an accident. It isn't something one complains about; it's something one deals with. The hex is curable, not fatal. It's like turning yourself into a part-cat, or taking a telescope blow to the eye. Hermione's actually getting better at deaing with these physical insults. Which is a good thing. Hermione was born a Muggle. She's got to toughen up. She will hear much worse in years to come. If her threshhold is physical looks, she is incredibly vulnerable to emotional manipulation. Snape has no time for babies who can't handle some minor hexing. Perhaps they remind him of himself at a certain age. Snape got insulted for his looks. He may have cried about it when he was younger. When he was older, he might have discounted it. Third post whew! lealess From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 23:06:05 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:06:05 -0000 Subject: Draco as Occlumens? (Was: Sadistic Snape, Occlumency, etc) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140309 Elyse wrote: > > And dont you think it SO impossible that Draco who was taught by such a crackpot of a teacher [Bellatrix] can withold thoughts from SNAPE???? > This is the man who can supposedly fool both LV and DD if he wants yet a total snotrag like Draco can close his mind from him? > > Incidentally I've always been surprised that Harry could break into Snape's mind during OOTP Occlumency lessons. > I mean how come Snape can hold out on his memories from LV but someone like Harry who has *no* Legilimency power can break through? I think JKR messed up on that one. Carol responds: First, with regard to Harry, he's not using Legilimency (or Occlumency) against Snape. As Pippin has pointed out, he's merely using an instinctive Protego, which causes *Snape's* Legilimency spell to rebound. It's not as if Harry has deliberately invaded Snape's mind. Protego is a DADA spell requiring no more skill at Legilimency than sticking your head in a Pensieve (the other means by which Harry sees one of Snape's memories). Snape tells Harry that he's supposed to be protecting himself mentally as he did from the Imperius Curse in Fake!Moody's class, and Harry is failing utterly. Still, Snape has authorized Harry to use his wand and protect himself and he seems to regard this moment as a step forward in Harry's *Occlumency* training. There's no indication that he regards it as *Legilimency*, only as self-defense. Snape would not have removed three memories from his head had he not expected some such defense on Harry's part. Regarding Draco--What Draco puts up in his confrontation with Snape is a crude and obvious mental shield that Snape detects instantly. Were Draco to try such a trick with LV, he'd end up Crucio'd or dead. Snape, in contrast, is a *superb* Occlumens who can use Occlumency on Voldemort without being detected (though he pretends to have told LV the truth in "Spinner's End"). As for Draco blocking Snape's attempt at Legilimency, I'm pretty sure that Snape could have pushed past it if he'd wanted to, but he could not have done so without further alienating Draco and possibly arousing his suspicions as to which side Snape is really on. (Notice that Snape asks, "What are you hiding from *your* master, Draco?"--not "our master," which suggests that Snape is not the loyal DE Draco thinks he is.) Also, given that breaking the Unbreakable Vow is a death sentence, Snape probably doesn't want to find out exactly what Draco is up to for fear that he'll be forced to help Draco do it (rather than "helping" by hindering as he's done to this point). So he just informs Draco that he knows he's using Occlumency, credits Bellatrix with teaching him (though it could be Narcissa, for all we know), and switches tactics. (IMO, the only thing he accomplishes in this interview is to discourage Draco from any more crude and easily attempts at murder. At least there are no more cursed objects or poisoned drinks from this point forward. But as I see it, Snape can't find out what Draco is really up to without getting involved himself. Hence, "You take too much for granted, Dumbledore! Maybe I don't want to do this any longer.") To get back on topic, Draco admittedly has more skill at Occlumency than Harry, who has no defense at all against Snape's Legilimency in HBP, but that doesn't make him a "superb" Occlumens like Snape. I think there's a huge difference between the crude Occlumency that Draco is learning and the sophisticated and virtually undetectable Occlumency that has protected Snape from death at LV's hands since his return to LV on Dumbledore's orders at the end of GoF. As Snape himself says in OoP, "The Dark Lord, for instance, almost always knows when somebody is lying to him. Only those *skilled* at Occlumency are able to shut down those feelings and memories that contradict the lie, and so utter falsehoods in his presence without detection." (Am. ed. 531, my emphasis) I would be very surprised if either Draco or Bellatrix (who never attempts to hide her feelings or opinions) had the skill required to lie to Voldemort undetected, and in Bellatrix's case, I doubt the motivation as well. It makes no sense that she would know Occlumency at all, much less be able to teach it, psychotic as she is. Maybe Snape is wrong in his guess that it's Aunt Bellatrix who's teaching Draco (elementary) Occlumency and it's really Narcissa trying to protect her son. Or maybe Snape suspects that it's really Narcissa but is deliberately steering wide of the mark so that Draco won't realize just how shrewd and perceptive he really is. Draco learning elementary Occlumency (in contrast to Harry, who can't learn it at all) makes *some* sense, at least in the light of the recent JKR interview about compartmentalizing the emotions). But Draco foiling Snape after a crash course in Occlumency makes no sense at all. In my view, the only explanation is that Snape *could* have broken through Draco's crude barrier but chose not to do so. Otherwise, after all we've heard about the difficulty of mastering Occlumency, it's a glaring Flint. Carol From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 23:19:37 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:19:37 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Looks / School Bullies (was: Re: Sadistic!Snape?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140310 > >>Lealess: > I don't take the insult to Hermione's teeth too seriously. This > is a school for witches and wizards, where a student can probably > get hexed at any minute, or have an accident. It isn't something > one complains about; it's something one deals with. The hex is > curable, not fatal. > > If her threshhold is physical looks, she is incredibly vulnerable to > emotional manipulation. > Betsy Hp: Ooh, Lealess, you're going to get letters! Actually, Hermione has always struck me as remarkably unconcerned about her looks. She runs off with tears in her eyes right after the hex and the insult, but she's seems pretty much over it after that. By HBP she's confident enough to feel she's got her pick of dates to take to Slughorn's Christmas party. It's interesting because I think Hermione's confidence undermines Pansy's role as a villain. I think Pansy is supposed to be the "popular girl" who makes the "bookish girl" miserable. But right about the time Pansy starts picking on Hermione, Hermione is being courted by an international sports hero. Which makes Pansy pretty toothless, IMO. Actually, most of the "school bullies" are treated this way by JKR it seems. Harry is richer, more connected, more popular, and more athletic than Draco. Hermione is prettier and more popular than Pansy. The twins are much better thugs than Crabbe and Goyle. (When the twins do the equivalent of stuffing someone in a locker, their victim nearly dies. Crabbe and Goyle can't even handle Neville. The twins help their guy beat down the enemy all the time. I don't recall Harry ever being touched by Crabbe and Goyle, Draco takes Harry on alone.) Strikes me as a bit strange really. It's like JKR has turned the "schooldays" genre up side down. Betsy Hp From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 23:43:44 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:43:44 -0000 Subject: Snape/Harry coincidence? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140311 Betsy wrote: > > In some ways, by starting to embrace his inner-Slytherin, I think > Harry may be getting primed for just such a reveal, a new take on > Snape. Certainly his admiration for the Prince will help as well, I > think. Though of course, the whole Snape killing Dumbledore thing > is a huge roadblock to overcome, so the drama will still flow. Saraquel: I didn't follow all of the Good Slytherin thread, so usual apologies if I'm repeating. Your phrase inner-slytherin, Betsy, made me think that Harry is actually the model of the good Slytherin. In terms of Slytherin qualities the hat points out 2 in particular - cunning and ambition. It seems that Harry has developed both these qualities much more in HBP. The cunning to achieve his ends is particularly in evidence IMO, in the scene where he hides the HBP's potion book from Snape. Whereas the ambition is revealed right at the end of the Horcruxes chapter, where he thinks that if anyone is to take out Voldemort, he wants it to be himself. I'd call taking on the most evil overlord ever, pretty ambitious. Saraquel From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 00:01:25 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 00:01:25 -0000 Subject: What did Voldemort want from Lily? Was Re: Voldie's Wand and other details In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140312 Amiable Dorsai wrote: > Hagrid finds a place to hide (Hogwarts?) for a day while Dumbledore > checks into things, determines that Harry can be protected by his > mother's sacrifice (How does he know this? That's bothered me for >a while.) and prepares to drop Harry at the Dursleys. > > Once it gets dark, he sends a message to Hagrid: Meet me at number > four, Privet Drive, Little Whinging, Surrey. Saraquel: I liked your suggestions Amiable Dorsai, but I'm afraid I'll have to take issue over this one. If Hagrid was hiding Harry at Hogwarts for the day he would never have flown over Bristol to get to the Dursleys. Hogwarts is due North and Bristol is due West of Surrey. Another option occured to me about using up time. We know that Voldemort would have let Lily live. This to me indicates that her living was desirable in some way to Voldemort. That she had some skill or knowledge that Voldemort could use. At that point Voldemort was still short of an immortal body (we know that from what he says in GoF rebirthing scene about his search for his immortal body having to wait.) So does Lily know something of the Philosophers Stone? Was she working on it with DD and Flamel? The other alternative that I think possible is that she worked as an unspeakable with the Room of Love. If Voldemort's aim was to be all powerful, he would have been very interested in this power. Hence my speculation that Voldemort did not just zap Lily straight away but probably spent quite some time trying to 'persuade' her to work for him. I can see him settling himself comfortably and toying with her in his sadistic way, and Lily resisting. I don't think the last couple of hours of her life were pleasant and probably involved more than a few crucios (sob) Was this why Harry heard her screaming when attacked by dementors? In doing this, Voldemort deliberately offered her life, which she refused. Was this the thing that made her sacrifice the unique one? Amiable Dorsai wrote: > There are a couple of problems: How does Dumbledore, or anyone >else who was not there, know what happened? What clues McGonagall >to go to Little Whinging? Saraquel: Yes I agree, this one does need some thought. Saraquel From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 00:06:47 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 00:06:47 -0000 Subject: Sadistic!Snape? (was:Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty...) In-Reply-To: <007101c5bad2$95501880$3621f204@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140313 Sherry wrote: However, the one person I do not forget or forgive is my own personal Snape, a teacher in high school who was indeed sadistic and thought himself just pushy and tough. To make it worse, he didn't actually teach anything, but he was the teacher in my school, who oversaw the lives of the blind students in that particular public high school. He had enormous power over our lives, poked his nose into our personal business, caused me great trouble with my dad. Sometimes, it was deserved, but often it was not. He is the reason I never went to college, because for years, the very idea made me physically ill. i was not the kind of kid to fight back, like Harry. I was the type to take it in and internalize it. So, no, I have not forgiven him. However, if I was in a position of authority over his grandchildren, i would never ever hold their relative's sins against them. That is incredibly childish and downright cruel and ridiculous. I would never even be unkind or cruel to him, if I was somehow in authority over him. After all, it would mean stooping to his level, becoming as terrible as he was to act like that. I hope I am a better person than that. I have made sure never to see him again, and I'm happy with that. vmonte responds: I had a teacher like Snape too. She was ruthless to all the students in the class--but she liked to single me out in particular. We were terrified of her. And she had the uncanny ability of finding out what your weakness and insecurities were and would then use them to humilate you in front of the entire class. She was like a loaded gun that could go off at any minute--the slightest thing could set her off. It would take divine intervention for that woman to ever have any understanding of what she did to people. I wouldn't mind shoving a love infused horcrux into her head. It might give her the conscience she never had. Vivian From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 00:53:46 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 00:53:46 -0000 Subject: Snape's contributions to Harry's education (Was: Sadistic Snape, Occlumency, etc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140314 vmonte wrote: > Didn't Harry learn about Buckbeak, skrewts, dragons, and thestrals from Hagrid? Carol responds: True, but he learned Expelliarmus (which saved his life in GoF) from Snape in the CoS duelling lesson and learned about bezoars (which saved Ron's life in HBP) in Snape's very first Potions class (reinforced by the young Snape's notations in his Potions book). I'd say that's at least as important as learning how to care for (or fly on) dangerous creatures. On a less crucial level, Harry learned useful spells like Muffliato and improved potion-making methods from the HBP's notes. Hermione learned about Polyjuice Potion (and even that the recipe could be found in "Moste Potent Potions") from Snape in CoS (as Harry and Ron would have learned, too, if they'd paid attention). She also learned how to recognize a werewolf from the essay he assigned in PoA. All of them learned to do "nvbl" DADA spells from Snape in HBP. I'm sure there are other lessons that Harry learned from Snape that I'm forgetting and still others, such as that essay on the uses of Moonstone, which may come in handy later. And surely Snape is right to insist that Harry should not use Unforgiveable Curses or Dark Magic in general, a lesson that Harry *must* learn if he intends to defeat Voldemort. I don't think that Harry is going to be fighting dragons, Thestrals, or hippogryffs in the next book, and he certainly won't be fighting blast-ended skrewts, which are Hagrid's (illegal) invention. He may, however, find that lessons he learned from Snape will again save his or a friend's life or that they have some bearing on the destruction Horcruxes. And there will undoubtedly be some sort of life lesson or moral lesson involving Snape, regardless of Snape's intentions. Snape as a teacher, I'll grant you, is far from nice (though less cruel than Umbridge), and his teaching methods are not particularly effective (at least for Harry), but much of what he has tried to teach Harry is nevertheless valuable, and the potions and antidotes he's taught or mentioned in various lessons might be worth examining more closely with that in mind. Even Occlumency *could* have been helpful. If Harry had been willing and able to learn it (and hadn't looked in the Pensieve), he could have blocked the fake vision of Sirius and Sirius would not have died. And walking through Snape's memory was a lesson, too, though not one Snape meant to teach, IMO. In the long run, I'm pretty sure that the lessons Snape has deliberately taught or tried to teach Harry (and the lessons in human nature that he has unwittingly taught him) will be of much more use than Transfiguring pincushions into hedgehogs, Charming cushions to fly, or squeezing Bubotuber pods to produce pus. Only the Patronus charm taught to Harry by Lupin (aided by Harry's convenient Dementor Boggart) has proven as useful as Snape's lessons on Expelliarmus and bezoars. In fact, if it weren't for Snape, both Harry and Ron would be dead. As JKR herself says, there's more to Snape than meets the eye, and she points to Book 4 (GoF) as the place to start looking. That's the book in which Snape shows Fudge his Dark Mark and courageously faces Voldemort on Dumbledore's orders. I know that HBP has muddied the waters and made it difficult to analyze Snape without projecting the tower scene onto him, but I think it's essential that we separate Snape the teacher from Snape the spy and Order member (and especially from Snape the apparent murderer) if we're ever going to untangle the mystery that is Snape the man. And just possibly labeling him as "evil" or "good" (or arguing whether he is or isn't sadistic) is IMO too simplistic an approach. How has he contributed, wittingly or unwittingly, to Harry's development might be a better question. Carol From ragingjess at hotmail.com Fri Sep 16 22:27:02 2005 From: ragingjess at hotmail.com (jessicabathurst) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:27:02 -0000 Subject: JKR's Opinions (was: Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140315 vmonte responds: > > What about Snape? > > JKR: Snape is a very sadistic teacher, loosely based on a > > teacher I myself had, I have to say. houyhnhnm: > Then she *is* using the word carelessly. There is a huge > difference between being "not a particularly pleasant person" and > being sadistic. Jessica: I agree. What's most interesting about this statement is that Rowling does give us an example of a teacher that can only be described as "very sadistic" - Umbridge. (Although whether she'd written Umbridge before she answered this question, I do not know.) Dear Delores makes Harry carve "I will not tell lies" into his own hand. Snape tries (and fails) to poison Neville's toad. Snape is in the minor leagues of sadism here. I would describe him as "occasionally sadistic" at best, although he is certain not pleasant. Which brings me to my next point: vmonte: > > Something that I find interesting in the Snape debates is that > > nothing JKR says in her interviews about Snape is ever considered > > as canon evidence. Jessica: Although I have the utmost respect for Rowling as the creator of this fabulous world, I don't much care what her opinions are of the characters as human beings. She may describe Snape as "very sadistic," but I wouldn't, and if I could base my case on the books she's written, I wouldn't be wrong. Rowling has access to tons of information about her characters that I don't have and will never have, but if it doesn't show up in the books, then I can't possibly be expected to base my conclusions on it. In my view, Rowling's opinions on Snape are as valid as anyone else's on this list, but no more. It's what she writes about him that counts. (Huh. And I didn't think I paid enough attention in my literary theory class to drag up "reader response" at this late date. Viva the theoretical Death of the Author!) I write this as someone who spent most of "David Copperfield" waiting for Dora to kick it because I thought she was insipid and grating. I'm guessing that probably wasn't what Dickens was after. Best, Jessica (who now thinks Snape should have made Harry wear a "Take Care of Him, He Curses" sign if he wanted to make it to the big leagues.) From rytal at yahoo.co.uk Sat Sep 17 01:05:24 2005 From: rytal at yahoo.co.uk (Auria) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 01:05:24 -0000 Subject: JKR's idea of horcruxes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140316 Something that I have been wondering (nothing really to do with the HP plot but very relevant all the same) is where did JKR get the idea of horcruxes? I mean its a very unusual concept - to split one's soul and 'keep' a piece in a separate place to gain immortality - and I wonder if JKR had gotten this idea from any other literature somewhere or if its entirely unique? Just my curiosity really, but does anyone have any thoughts about this? Afterall, its a very creepy idea isn't it! Auria From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 16 22:42:46 2005 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:42:46 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Memories WAS: Voldie's Wand and other details In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140317 Amiable Dorsai: >There are a couple of problems: How does Dumbledore, or anyone else >who was not there, know what happened? PJ answers: Since Harry is the only one left standing that night (that we know of), I think Dumbledore must take the memory directly from Harry. Does anyone know if a memory removed is a duplicate or the only memory? Harry doesn't remember that night other than a scream and a flash of green and I've wondered if that was because Dumbledore has his memory of it or if it was because he was so young. Amiable Dorsai: >What clues McGonagall to go to Little Whinging? PJ again: My guess would be a Phoenix patronis. :-) I'd send someone there to watch for DE's if I were Dumbledore. PJ From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Sep 16 23:27:46 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:27:46 -0000 Subject: Sadistic!Snape? (was:Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140318 Betsy Hp: > Probably because the books don't plainly state it at all. Errr, actually they do. On each and every page where Snape is shown interacting with Harry, Hermione, Ron, or Neville. Betsy Hp: > I think Snape chose Harry for *all* the questions with deliberate > reason. He was telling the other students in Harry's class that > Snape was not bowled over by the "great Harry Potter" and neither > should they be. He was also playing the part of a former Death > Eater. But most importantly to him, I think, Snape was testing > Harry's character, and I think (unfortunately and incorrectly) > found reason to worry. Which is really beside the point. Snape's worries do not excuse his behavior toward Harry in any way, shape, form, or fashion. Neither do his mistaken beliefs about education excuse his treatment of any of his students in any way, shape, form, or fashion. Amiable Dorsai: > > ...insulting an orphan's father... Betsy Hp: > Whenever Snape brought up James it was usually (IIRC) when Harry > was doing something colossally stupid, like sneaking into > Hogsmeade when there was a mass murderer out for his blood. > Snape, with good reason (especially after reading some of > Sirius's "advice"), was trying to turn Harry away from emulating > his father. Snape chose a piss-poor way of going about it, I > grant. But again, I see a reason for his behavior. Enjoyment of > Harry's suffering wasn't it, IMO. Once again, Snape's beliefs about Harry or James do not excuse his behavior in any way, shape, form, or fashion. Betsy Hp: > Actually, I'd catagorize the toad incident as trying to vividly > drive home the lesson that the potions the students are making are > *supposed* to be consumed. Frankly, I think Snape was trying to > reach Neville here. It didn't work, unfortunately. And taking > five points for Hermione's cheating strikes me as something much > less than abusive and certainly not sadistic. If threatening to kill a student's beloved pet isn't sadistic, what on Earth would be? Lealess: > > Honestly, Snape is not cut out to be a teacher. Betsy Hp: > I think he's an excellent teacher, myself. I find that bizarre and totally inexplicable. But you do, of course, have a right to your opinions. Betsy: > I just think he's of a certain (out of favor now unfortunately) > sort. And with extraordinarily good reasons. Betsy Hp: > Exactly! While Harry still bears the scars of Umbridge's > treatment. No, JKR knows how to write a sadist, and she didn't do > so with Snape, IMO. And I totally disagree. Snape is a textbook example of petty sadism which JKR has depicted perfectly. The sad fact that he is allowed to teach is one of the deepest sins (and I use that word quite deliberately) of the Wizarding World, and helps account for the fact that so many fans have such deep contempt for that world, and would likely be happy to see Voldemort destroy it were it not for such rare examples as the Weasleys. Lupinlore From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Sep 17 01:11:59 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 01:11:59 -0000 Subject: The AK itself, / Keep Harry Horcrux Free Challenge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140319 > > ibchawz: > > > > Since hand bandages seem to be in short supply, I'll just grab the > > nearest lamp and prepare to repeated bash my head. This one is > > relatively easy to work out. The logical flow of events is as > > follows: > > > > 1. LV murders James Potter. > > 2. LV murders Lily Potter (Or rather Lily sacrifices herself as > > opposed to chosing to step aside). > > 3. LV attempts to murder Harry Potter, but the spell rebounds due > > to Lily's sacrifice. > > > > Harry would not have the scar at this point in time because LV has > > not attempted to murder him yet. The scar is a by-product of the > > rebounded AK. > > Saraquel: > Preparing to bang head against desk thoroughly as well as iron hands > as this is my fourth post today! Never mind it's gone midnight > here, so I'm off to bed in a mo. In GoF Priori Incantatem, there is > no extra spell to account for the rebounded AK curse, implying that > Lily was AKed and died and Harry got his scar at one and the same > time. Now do you see my problem? Valky: I am breaking an old agreement with Steve even going here, but I just have to now this issue has come up again. Sorry :| Okay I am going to speculate on why the wand order mistake existed in the first place, IOW why would Lily be the last shadow out of the wand. Yes I know it was corrected.. but if we can imagine a reason for Lily to have been last..... Okay, I mess with canon as we know it, I am ironing as we speak believe me. But I can't help but think there was method to the madness "originally". Logically what would that be? Could it be to conceal the spell that occurred before Lily's death? The extenuating circumstance that made her sacrifice that bit more powerful. Now if that was the case, by now JKR will have needed to change the scene to suit the Priori Incantatem, IOW if there *was* a wand spell from Voldemort prior to Lily's death, it couldn't be a wand spell anymore, or alternately it could be arbitrarily moved to a place behind James in the reverse order. However, it can still be a basis to assume that there was always intended to be revealed an additional magical incantation performed by Voldemort at Godrics Hollow in addition to the AK's. Valky Now locating a blunt object to beat her head with. From raie8 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 00:36:04 2005 From: raie8 at yahoo.com (raie8) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 00:36:04 -0000 Subject: Snape/Harry coincidence? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140320 Jen: > > All that's left is finding out Snape loved Lily--Oh please, > > no, that one is too much for me ;)! Regardless, I think Harry > > *will* see Snape with Lily's eyes of compassion one day, and > > only then will Harry (and readers) see him for exactly who he is. Betsy Hp: > Heh. I can totally get behind Snape and Lily dating at some > point. Though I think it might be more powerful (especially with > JKR) if they were just friends. But yeah, that could well be the > big shocker reveal that Harry has to deal with regarding his > mother. ("But...but...She was supposed to be practically perfect > in every way!") Raie: Has anyone explored the idea that Lily wasn't the 'natural' at potions that Slughorn dotes her out be? That maybe here talent can be attributed to the tutelage of another student? Perhaps from a brilliant student with an affinity for potions but lacking in social status, but who would also benefit from the secrecy of such an arrangement? I am merely a tyro here and can barely keep up with the current posts let alone sift for past ones, but I think it could fit that Lily and Severus knew each other in this capacity. I like the idea that she convinced him to help her with her studies in exchange for something, possibly a challenge to teach a 'filthy mudblood'(not my words), basic social interaction with a peer (I don't remember him having any friends) or for something as straightforward as money. Either way it was kept secret since neither party wanted to deal with the ramifications of such an agreement. Raie From rytal at yahoo.co.uk Sat Sep 17 01:19:01 2005 From: rytal at yahoo.co.uk (Auria) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 01:19:01 -0000 Subject: Voldie's Wand and other details In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140321 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "darqali" wrote: > There are a lot more troubling "out of time" issues in Potterverse > than this to me .... for one simple example, the Chamber Of Secrets > was supposedly made, and hidden, in the era of the founding of > Hogwarts ... about 1,000 years ago from present day. So how could > the hidden passage to the chamber be in a modern-day girls' bathroom > through the plumbing of a sink? Were wizards using modern bathrooms > 1000 years ago? > > Now *theres* an issue of time-out-of-place to chew over. > > darqali Auria writes: Thats a very good point, and there is no canon to explain, but I can think of one way myself. Lets say the original entrance to the Chamber of Secrets was created out of something which resembled a wide pillar. Over the years as bathrooms were created, this pillar was innocently used to attach sinks and taps and the room made into a girls bathroom, without anyone recognising that said pillar was indeed the secret entrance to the chamber. Another point is that the Chamber was previously opened by Tom Riddle, and perhaps he then added his own embelishments to the taps on the sinks ie. the snake patterns representing Slytherin. Its pure guesswork but a possibility....just coming to JKR's defence here, but I totally agree with your original observation. Auria From rytal at yahoo.co.uk Sat Sep 17 01:27:08 2005 From: rytal at yahoo.co.uk (Auria) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 01:27:08 -0000 Subject: Lily and Snape WAS: Snape/Harry coincidence? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140322 > Raie: > Has anyone explored the idea that Lily wasn't the 'natural' at potions that Slughorn dotes her out be? That maybe here talent can be attributed to the tutelage of another student? Perhaps from a > brilliant student with an affinity for potions but lacking in social > status, but who would also benefit from the secrecy of such an > arrangement? >> > Raie Auria writes: Actually I think it was probably the other way round - that Lily was helping Snape and that he was taking 'notes' on her techniques by writing it all in his textbook. It would then be ironic that Harry is learning from the HBP notes that actually were his own mother's flashes of genius. Auria From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 03:05:09 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 03:05:09 -0000 Subject: Sadistic!Snape? (was:Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140323 Lealess: > Snape has no time for babies who can't handle some minor hexing. > Perhaps they remind him of himself at a certain age. Snape got > insulted for his looks. He may have cried about it when he was > younger. When he was older, he might have discounted it. Alla: I don't understand your point, sorry. Are you arguing that the fact that Snape was bullied as a student gave him a right to turn into a bully himself? I don't see how the fact that Snape may have been insulted for his looks gives him a right to insult Hermione. It is not like Hermione herself insulted Snape and he felt the need to get back at her, right? Are you arguing that Snape tried to TEACH Hermione how to cope with emotional problems when he insulted her? if it is so, then I am certainly hoping that Hermione would NOT adopt Snape's way of dealing with emotional problems. That would be truly scary to me. Are you saying that this is in Hogwarts' teacher job requirements - when student is injured and asks you for help - insult him instead? :-) ( OK, I realise that you are not arguing this part :-)) > Amiable Dorsai: > > > ...insulting an orphan's father... > > Betsy Hp: > > Whenever Snape brought up James it was usually (IIRC) when Harry > > was doing something colossally stupid, like sneaking into > > Hogsmeade when there was a mass murderer out for his blood. > > Snape, with good reason (especially after reading some of > > Sirius's "advice"), was trying to turn Harry away from emulating > > his father. Snape chose a piss-poor way of going about it, I > > grant. But again, I see a reason for his behavior. Enjoyment of > > Harry's suffering wasn't it, IMO. Alla: How does Snape try to stop Harry from emulating his father? By insulting him? Then he has no understanding of human psychology, period, IMO. Harry adored his father. Was Snape thinking that by insulting him Harry would think of James any less? I would think that if his most hated professor insults his beloved dead father, Harry would think of him as saint. Just me of course. Oh, and here of course we have that little unpleasant fact that Snape is complicit in James death, so insulting him in front of the child whom Snape helped to become an orphan in retrospect is not just sadistic , it is to me despicable to the extreme AND makes me doubt that Snape has any remorse about delivering prophecy to Voldemort. Again, IMO. Lupinlore: > Once again, Snape's beliefs about Harry or James do not excuse his > behavior in any way, shape, form, or fashion. Alla: Agreed. Having said all of the above, I don't believe that Snape had any right to speak with Harry about James in the first place. Just my opinion of course, Alla. From sunnylove0 at aol.com Sat Sep 17 03:05:20 2005 From: sunnylove0 at aol.com (sunnylove0 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:05:20 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sadistic!Snape? (was:Snape's canon opposite/ Proving ... Message-ID: <216.94edc5b.305ce1f0@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140324 In a message dated 9/16/2005 7:10:59 PM Mountain Standard Time, bob.oliver at cox.net writes: Betsy Hp: > I think Snape chose Harry for *all* the questions with deliberate > reason. He was telling the other students in Harry's class that > Snape was not bowled over by the "great Harry Potter" and neither > should they be. He was also playing the part of a former Death > Eater. But most importantly to him, I think, Snape was testing > Harry's character, and I think (unfortunately and incorrectly) > found reason to worry. Which is really beside the point. Snape's worries do not excuse his behavior toward Harry in any way, shape, form, or fashion. Neither do his mistaken beliefs about education excuse his treatment of any of his students in any way, shape, form, or fashion. If Snape was a Real World teacher, he would be sacked and grief counselors brought in. In the Potterverse it's wah, bleeping, wah. We do not have dragons, dementors, psycho trees, skrewts, or a sport played 50 feet above the ground, nor are we born hardy enough to survive it. Known sociopaths who have killed, maimed, and tortured aren't brought into our schools and given access to books full of new ways to kill, maim, and torture. (Though I'll grant you that both societies react to terrorism with panic and draconian measures.) If Harry, Ron, Hermione, or Neville talk back, cry or freeze up in front of Snape, it's a tongue lashing. If they do it in front of one of the above mentioned Potterverse nasties, it's a rather painful death. Weakness will not excuse you from dying like an idiot. I notice that both Harry and Neville kept their heads enough in battle to fight, and the students resisted against Umbridge. It's a horrible thing, but you can not coddle children who are going to be front line soldiers in a terrible war. Dumbledore pulled this with Harry and the result was the disaster in OOP. Most of us will go to work, raise families, live normal lives, and experience real evil on CNN. Most of the children in the Potterverse will be forced to choose sides for good and evil and lose family members, friends and possibly their own lives. Every one of them are in danger from this war. If they can't deal with a probable sadist like Snape (who'd make a good drill sergeant) what can't they deal with? JMO, Amber [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 03:20:50 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 03:20:50 -0000 Subject: Sadistic!Snape? (was:Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140325 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Probably because the books don't plainly state it at all. > >>Lupinlore: > Errr, actually they do. On each and every page where Snape is > shown interacting with Harry, Hermione, Ron, or Neville. Betsy Hp: Ummm, no they do not. If they did I suspect you'd quote canon to prove it. But you don't so... > >>Lupinlore: > If threatening to kill a student's beloved pet isn't sadistic, what > on Earth would be? Betsy Hp: Reread that incident. Snape *never* threatens to *kill* Trevor. > >>Lupinlore: > > And I totally disagree. Snape is a textbook example of petty > sadism which JKR has depicted perfectly. Betsy Hp: Lupinlore, I'd take you more seriously if you'd *use the books* instead of just stating opinion. That's why I snipped most of your response. It lacked any sort of substance. You disagree with me, fine. But I brought up canon, and you've not used any of it. I'd love to know what you find different between McGonagall's behavior and Snape's. You say Snape is a "textbook example", what textbook? And what does that textbook say? > >>Lupinlore: > The sad fact that he is allowed to teach is one of the deepest > sins (and I use that word quite deliberately) of the Wizarding > World, and helps account for the fact that so many fans have such > deep contempt for that world, and would likely be happy to see > Voldemort destroy it were it not for such rare examples as the > Weasleys. Betsy Hp: Many "fans" hold the WW in contempt? Why on earth do they call themselves fans? It's like saying, I loved Star Wars, except for the annoying Jedi stuff. And it's interesting that you'd bring up the Weasley family as the example of all that's good in the world. Two of their sons nearly murdered a fellow student. Why do they get a pass? (All students are equal. Gryffindors are more equal than others?) Betsy Hp (fourth post, sorry) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 03:23:55 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 03:23:55 -0000 Subject: Sadistic!Snape?/Potterverse and reality In-Reply-To: <216.94edc5b.305ce1f0@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140326 Amber: If Snape was a Real World teacher, he would be sacked and grief counselors brought in. In the Potterverse it's wah, bleeping, wah. We do not have dragons, dementors, psycho trees, skrewts, or a sport played 50 feet above the ground, nor are we born hardy enough to survive it > Most of us will go to work, raise families, live normal lives, and > experience real evil on CNN. Most of the children in the Potterverse will be forced > to choose sides for good and evil and lose family members, friends and > possibly their own lives. Every one of them are in danger from this war. If they > can't deal with a probable sadist like Snape (who'd make a good drill sergeant) > what can't they deal with? Alla: I guess it all depends on how you treat "Potterverse". I touched on it earlier, but cannot find my old post. If you treat it as completely different world, unrelated to ours, I can see your argument. I treat Potterverse as reflection of RL ( sometimes ugly, sometimes satirical, but still connected to our world). Now, of course "Potterverse" has magic, but I consider magic to be just a external element to be added to make the world more interesting, that is all. JKR, IMO, did not write about the aliens race, the fact that "Potterverse" "exists" in parallel to RL, makes me think that she wanted us to think that she drew richly on parallels from our world. The witches and wizards are still first and foremost people and only then magic users, IMO( yes they are stronger physically,but who mostly have the same emotional reaction to pain, happiness, grief and sorrow as we do, therefore I disagree that students in Potterverse needed to be treated differently only because they are at war. Unfortunately quite a few countries are at war in our world, does it mean that children in those countries should be treated in schools as future soldiers only and their childhood should be taken away? Same thing in Potterverse - I don't see why the fact they are at war with Voldie should make them endure Snape ( I mean I understand it for the sake of the story, but from within the story, I don't) JMO, Alla. From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 17 03:41:39 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 03:41:39 -0000 Subject: Sadistic!Snape? (was:Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140327 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" >> Betsy Hp: > > Actually, I'd catagorize the toad incident as trying to vividly > > drive home the lesson that the potions the students are making are > > *supposed* to be consumed. Frankly, I think Snape was trying to > > reach Neville here. It didn't work, unfortunately. And taking > > five points for Hermione's cheating strikes me as something much > > less than abusive and certainly not sadistic. Lupinlore: > If threatening to kill a student's beloved pet isn't sadistic, what > on Earth would be? Marianne: And, whether or not one wants to characterize this brief exercise in terrorizing Neville about the possible demise of his pet as sadistic, what has always bothered me is that Snape never changes his approach to Neville. Obivously he knows what effect he has on Neville, right? I mean, Snape is a superb Occlumens so he must be able to "read" Neville. And, his long career as a double agent must have honed his skills in reading people through their slightest facial ticks and reactions to a razor's edge. So, I can't for a moment believe he had no idea of his impact on Neville. Maybe what it comes down to is that Snape has no idea that not all people will react the same way to the same style of teaching. Snape realized that Neville would bumble his way through Potions, and, since that was all he could do, that was all Snape expected. It never seemed to occur to him that perhaps trying a different tact with this student might have gotten better results. > Lealess: > > > Honestly, Snape is not cut out to be a teacher. > > Betsy Hp: > > Exactly! While Harry still bears the scars of Umbridge's > > treatment. No, JKR knows how to write a sadist, and she didn't do > > so with Snape, IMO. > Lupinlore: > And I totally disagree. Snape is a textbook example of petty sadism > which JKR has depicted perfectly. The sad fact that he is allowed to teach is one of the deepest sins (and I use that word quite > deliberately) of the Wizarding World, and helps account for the fact > that so many fans have such deep contempt for that world, and would > likely be happy to see Voldemort destroy it were it not for such rare examples as the Weasleys. Marianne: Agreed. And, yes, Harry still bears visible scars from Umbridge's treatment, but that seems to me to treat a bit lightly the scars on people that are not seen. What we are falling into here seems similar to me to the discussion not long ago as to whether the Dursleys treatment of Harry constituted child abuse. Happily, we have not gotten to the snarky personal level, but, I suspect we're not going to agree whether or not Snape is abusive, either. Marianne From sunnylove0 at aol.com Sat Sep 17 03:49:02 2005 From: sunnylove0 at aol.com (sunnylove0 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:49:02 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sadistic!Snape?/Potterverse and reality Message-ID: <191.47bfaa7b.305cec2e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140328 In a message dated 9/16/2005 9:24:19 PM Mountain Standard Time, dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com writes: Unfortunately quite a few countries are at war in our world, does it mean that children in those countries should be treated in schools as future soldiers only and their childhood should be taken away? Same thing in Potterverse - I don't see why the fact they are at war with Voldie should make them endure Snape ( I mean I understand it for the sake of the story, but from within the story, I don't) JMO, Alla. I don't believe that their childhood should be taken away. There's only one Snape at Hogwarts, and according to Dumbledore by way of JKR, he's one of the lessons the students should learn. (Ha! Someone refered to an interview!) The rest of the Hogwarts experience is rather fun, actually. I'm just saying that the Potterverse is, at times, vicious and evil, and they will have to learn how to deal with it. And they do, once a week. They won't be at Hogwarts forever, nor was Hogwarts protected forever. Amber [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 03:59:38 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 03:59:38 -0000 Subject: That darn Prophecy again.. Re: Thin air/Choices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140329 Carol earlier: > > Voldemort kills Lily, activating the ancient love magic. Voldemort AKs Harry. The AK bursts from Harry's head, leaving a jagged scar > > Sandy aka msbeadsley responded: > Am I missing something, or is there a problem with this in that the incidental Priori Incantatem in the graveyard didn't show Voldemort's wand having done anything past Lily's death? Are you inferring that it didn't show because it didn't succeed? I have to say regretfully that I have never liked this notion; within this scenario, the wand did cast the spell, regardless of the result or lack of one. Something should have appeared. Shouldn't it? > > Carol replies: Yes, I think the Priori Incantantem failed to show the AK that rebounded from Harry onto Voldemort because it was a failed curse--there was no shadow self of Harry to show. Even Harry's scar was caused by the repelled AK *bursting outward* and not by the original spell cast by LV and besides the Priori Incantatem would have no way of showing such a nonstandard result. (I don't think the PI shows every spell, BTW, only AKs, Crucios, the silver hand, and possibly other spells that can be physically represented. I don't see how it could show an Imperius or a memory charm, for example.) JKR has made it clear in all the books and in her interviews that the killing curse aimed at Harry rebounded onto LV. Clearly this failed AK is a different curse from the normal and successful AK that killed Lily. When Voldemort says (ungrammatically) in GoF: "My curse was deflected by the woman's foolish sacrifice, and it rebounded upon myself," I read the words to mean that Lily was already dead and that the curse rebounded from Harry because of the ancient magic involved in her sacrifice. But if she simply stepped in front of him and took the AK aimed at him, something else would be necessary to explain how *Harry* survived an AK. Unless Harry himself was struck with a killing curse, as all the books and interviews imply, there's nothing miraculous about his survival and no need to bring in the concept of ancient magic. So IMO, three AKs were cast that night, but the wand showed only the successful ones (James and Lily, along with later victims), not the one the AK that rebounded. On a related note, people keep looking for a reason why Voldemort would be willing to spare Lily. I don't think he cared about her one way or the other. She was just a "silly girl" standing in his way. It seems to me quite obvious that killing her was the only way to get her out of his way so he could reach his real target, Harry. He was not trying to create a Horcrux. He was trying to prevent the prophecy from being fulfilled by destroying "the one with the power." Maybe he intended to celebrate afterwards by creating his final Horcrux from this highly significant murder, but the business at hand was killing the infant who had (or would in future have) the power to destroy him. Carol, who also wanted to say something about Diary!Tom being a memory rather than a soul fragment (the diary started out as something other than a Horcrux) but finds that mixing topics tangles up the threads From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Sep 17 04:27:32 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 04:27:32 -0000 Subject: A question of loyalty (Re: Snape's canon opposite) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140330 > Alla: > But I am going to try and clarify again . No, prior to HBP I did > not think of Snape as evil of the same caliber as Voldemort of > course. I think HBP broadened my horizons significantly though. > > You know, I think that maybe I am arguing semantics since I am > thinking of the concept of Evil in Russian and I tend to think of > mean person as a bit more of " annoying", something which could be > overcome quite easily. > > So, I guess the best way to describe what I felt about Snape as a > teacher would be using "everyday evil" expression ( thank you, > Nora). But I also felt that he was loyal to the Light, so I > thought of him as evil person with redemptive qualities, with at > least some ability to do the right thing. Jen: I get it now and it wasn't what you wrote Alla, just my own misunderstanding about the 'everyday evil' issue. This also helps me understand where we differ. In analyzing the Snape question, I find it less a morality question of good & evil and more a question of loyalty. Who is Snape loyal to? I wonder and puzzle over that. The choices seem to be himself, Dumbledore, Voldemort or no one (I think we can safely say the MOM is out of the question, lol). Snape's choice of where his loyalty lies, as he demands of Quirrell in PS, is certainly more important to Dumbledore than the lesser questions of behavior, personality, etc. And to call on the debate about choices, resolving the question of who Snape is loyal to will resolve the question of what Snape has 'chosen to make of his life' to paraphrase Dumbledore in GOF. One thing I love about Potterverse is the many magical ways to gain insight into a person's essence. JKR has hidden these from us carefully in regard to Snape. We don't get to see his greatest fear, or what he sees when looking into the Mirror of Erised. If he has an animagus form, we don't know what it is, and his patronus form is a mystery. We don't know anything about the wand that chose this particular wizard, or what it was good for. She is hiding Snape's essence from us in a way she does with no one else in Potterverse. So, we continue to debate his behavior and personality, hoping for a clue about motives, I suppose. I don't find an answer for myself in these debates, even though engaging in them makes me think an epiphany could strike at any moment . I feel pretty certain Snape's loyalty is crucially important to the ending of the story or we would have much less page time devoted to Snape's personality, teaching methods, and hygiene and much more on the really crucial question of who he serves. Last thought, the Unbreakable Vow. First read-through made me think this was a clear choice proving Snape wasn't loyal to Dumbledore. "If he's willing to kill Dumbledore, he's not loyal to him, end of story." Then questions arose as the plot progressed, several events muddied the water for me. One was why Dumbledore didn't act concerned when Harry brought up the UV to him after Christmas. We see him later turn white when Harry confronted him with Snape being the eavesdropper, so he IS capable of being surprised by information, but he wasn't surprised to hear about the UV. Second, the fight in the forest which Hagrid interpreted wrong, given the timeline of the story. Last was the scene of Snape running out of the grounds and the reaction he had when Harry said "kill me, like you killed him, you coward-" (chap. 28). I *really* think Snape was reacting to Harry's demand to 'kill me', even though his comment was about the coward part. All of these scenes made me wonder about the origin of the UV and how it may or may not have fit into Dumbledore's plan. Jen, hoping to get her thoughts together for the Snape/Harry coincidence thread tomorrow :). From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Sep 17 04:44:36 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:44:36 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sadistic!Snape?/Potterverse and reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <017201c5bb42$829d7500$3621f204@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 140331 Unfortunately quite a few countries are at war in our world, does it mean that children in those countries should be treated in schools as future soldiers only and their childhood should be taken away? Same thing in Potterverse - I don't see why the fact they are at war with Voldie should make them endure Snape ( I mean I understand it for the sake of the story, but from within the story, I don't) JMO, Alla. Sherry adds: Let's not forget either, that when Harry walks in the door at Hogwarts, from the very first day till the end of GOF his *fourth* year, the wizarding world was *not* at war. Voldemort was dead, so everyone believed. some, such as Dumbledore, may have had doubts as to how long that would last, but there was no war. So, Snape and as an extension the entire WW had no reason to bully their children or toughen them up or in any other way prepare them for war. I don't understand the whole mindset that says a teacher can be as utterly rotten and cruel as Snape is to his students, in the name of toughening them up or preparing the for a war that did not even exist. It is not a teacher's job to "toughen up" his students. It is his job to teach. Let a physical education teacher or coach make them physically tough, but leave their emotional stability alone. sherry From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 17 04:54:18 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 04:54:18 -0000 Subject: Sadistic!Snape? and the Question of Harm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140332 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > >>Lupinlore: > > If threatening to kill a student's beloved pet isn't sadistic, what > > on Earth would be? > > Betsy Hp: > Reread that incident. Snape *never* threatens to *kill* Trevor. Marianne: POA, Page 128 US edition. Snape says "...watch what happens to Longbottom's toad. If he has managed to produce a Shrinking Solution, it will shrink to a tadpole. If, as I don't doubt, he has done it wrong, his toad is likely to be poisoned." Okay, he doesn't say "I'm going to kill Longbottom's toad." But, telling a 13-year-old who he knows is frightened of him that his pet is likely to be only poisoned, not killed, still doesn't paint Snape in the brightest of colors. And, should something irreversible have happened to Trevor, then Neville would have had the additional burden of knowing that his own lack of ability created the potion that damaged his pet. > > >>Lupinlore: > > The sad fact that he is allowed to teach is one of the deepest > > sins (and I use that word quite deliberately) of the Wizarding > > World, and helps account for the fact that so many fans have such > > deep contempt for that world, and would likely be happy to see > > Voldemort destroy it were it not for such rare examples as the > > Weasleys. > > Betsy Hp: > Many "fans" hold the WW in contempt? Why on earth do they call > themselves fans? It's like saying, I loved Star Wars, except for the > annoying Jedi stuff. And it's interesting that you'd bring up the > Weasley family as the example of all that's good in the world. Two > of their sons nearly murdered a fellow student. Why do they get a > pass? (All students are equal. Gryffindors are more equal than > others?) Marianne: But, Fred & George didn't intend to murder him, just like Snape wasn't trying to kill Trevor and Draco really was only repairing furniture. Trevor didn't die. Neither did Montague or Katie Bell (necklace) or Ron (poisoned mead) or Snape himself (Prank). Maybe all these cases should just be put under the heading "no harm, no foul" and tossed in the rubbish bin. I think part of the problem when looking at potential harm to people in the WW is that some problems can be taken care of rapidly or, in the case of a longer-term problem, can still be reversed with apparently little lasting effects, psychological or otherwise. Lose all the bones in your arm? No problem, we'll grow them back overnight. Petrified by a basilisk? We'll just chop up those Mandrakes and whip a cure. JKR has veered between wanting us to be amused or horrified at what magic can do. Burping up slugs is disgusting, but it's not painful or dangerous. But things like the Imperious Curse taking away one's free will or something like Sectumsempra immediately slashing one bloody are portrayed as dark and dangerous. Yet, even Sectumsempra can be counteracted quickly. Snape is able to get Malfoy on his feet pretty quickly, considering he was collapsed on the floor bathed in his own blood. Harry is horrified by what Sectumsempra does, and, IMO, regrets using it. Are we to give Harry a pass here because he does realize the depths of how wrong he was to use this curse? Is everything that Fred & George do written off as a joke by JKR, because jokes are what they do, even if they could have killed Montague? Is the reader encouraged to think of that incident as a joke because, after all, no one died? Marianne, who really should go to bed From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com Sat Sep 17 05:13:22 2005 From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 05:13:22 -0000 Subject: FILK: Sneaque Alley Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140333 SNEAQUE ALLEY (kind of goes along with Diagon and Knocturn Alley, don't you think?) To the tune of Creeque Alley by the Mamas and the Papas. (Yes, you do know that song, it starts with "John and Mitchy were gettin' kind of itchy ...") Here is a midi (in an impossible key, but that's what there was) http://www.wtv-zone.com/REMEMBERTHEN/midis10/creequealley.mid So, get out your love beads and join in: Young Tom Riddle was sittin' in the middle Of his playmates but he never would play When a caller, like Santa Claus, but taller Came to Mrs. Coles's one day. The man made amazing claims, And after that the wardrobe burst into flames. Marvolo and Morfin won't accept an orphan And Merope couldn't take it no more. And no one's gettin' wise except Voldemort. Dumble said "Tommy, it's a shame about your mommy But she left a gift of magic in you. Let's go now." Tommy said, "No, sir. I'll walk it since I'm closer. I can handle it anyhow." Then I'll see you at the sorting in September (at Hogwarts) But left with a warning Tommy would remember. Marvolo and Morfin disavowed the orphan And a few things concerned Dumbledore. But no one's gettin' wise except Voldemort. When Tommy was a schoolboy, never broke a rule boy And afterward he talked to a snake. Found his mother's locket, nicked it like a rocket, And hid it in a boobytrapped lake. When Tommy asked Slug about a Horcrux He learned you need to murder if you want a redux. Marvolo and Morfin didn't know the orphan But kept snakeskins nailed to the door. And no one's gettin' wise except Voldemort. Woodchucks, beernuts, chipmunks, fishguts--- Pick a word that's easy to say. Horcrux, Schmorcrux. What could there be more nuts? Guess it had to be that way. Hepzibah Smith set a love trap; Tom took the cup, the elf took the death rap Marvolo and Morfin finally met the orphan But they wouldn't miss him no more. And everybody's gettin' wise except Voldemort. (Di-di-di-dit dit dit di-di-di-dit, who-o-oa) Fiery diary kept for an inquiry Waiting there for someone to see Memories for ages kept between the pages That Ginny found eventually. Splittin' souls is getting sort of chancy Work for Burke, but don't do nothing fancy. Hepzibah and Hokey thought Tom was okey dokey; It can go on indefinitely. And Tom's immortal schemin' is becomin' a reality... ~CV, still groovy after all these years From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sat Sep 17 05:17:36 2005 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 05:17:36 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?FILK:_Watching_Lou=92s_Son_Whine?= Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140334 For some odd and inpenetrably obscure reason, this filk is set to the exact same tune as Ginger's Its All About Fungi (message 140292) Watching Lou's Son Whine (HBP, Chap. 19) To the tune of Walking on Sunshine by Katrina and the Waves THE SCENE: Pomfrey's infirmary. DOBBY voluntarily agrees to assist Harry in an assignment that his Grimmauld Place counterpart will agree to only under magic coercion DOBBY (to Harry): He says that he never will serve you, contempt you're beneath He wants to condemn you that way, so I knocked out his teeth Now ev'ryone knows he's a maniac when it comes to pure blood So if he is wantin' to fight me, my fists will go thud I'm whacking on Kreacher, whoa oh I'm whacking on Kreacher, whoa oh I'm whacking on Kreacher, whoa oh I'm whacking on Kreacher, whoa oh Won't he feel it good, hey, let's fight now Won't he feel it good! You know how much Dobby does love you, I'll never fall short And Kreacher now has to obey you, says Black's probate court Now you tell us both to start sneakin' and follow Malfoy (ho, ho!) I'll go without sleep for one whole week till I learn of his ploy We're watching Lou's son whine, whoa oh We're watching Lou's son whine, whoa oh We're watching Lou's son whine, whoa oh We're watching Lou's son whine, whoa oh Won't he feel it good, hey, let's fight now Won't he feel it good We're watching Lou's son whine, we're watching Lou's son whine His tails are elves, his tails are elves, his tails are elves who'll really squeal Avail myself, avail myself Avail myself to really squeal against Draco, Harry, oh Oh yeah, against Draco, Harry, oh Now we're watching Lou's son whine, whoa oh We're watching Lou's son whine, whoa oh We're watching Lou's son whine, whoa oh We're watching Lou's son whine, whoa oh Won't he feel it good, hey, let's fight now Won't he feel it good I spy it, I spy it, I spy it again, now And won't I squeal good, hey, yeah now And won't I squeal good, hey Now won't I, won't I, won't I, won't I, won't I, won't I, squeal good I spy it, I spy it, I spy it again, now - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From fabian.peng-karrholm at chalmers.se Sat Sep 17 06:51:23 2005 From: fabian.peng-karrholm at chalmers.se (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fabian_Peng_K=E4rrholm?=) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 08:51:23 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lily and Snape WAS: Snape/Harry coincidence? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <432BBCEB.3000703@chalmers.se> No: HPFGUIDX 140335 Auria wrote: >Auria writes: >Actually I think it was probably the other way round - that Lily was >helping Snape and that he was taking 'notes' on her techniques by >writing it all in his textbook. It would then be ironic that Harry is >learning from the HBP notes that actually were his own mother's flashes >of genius. > >Auria > > > > Fabian: I think you're right. JKR has said that she inserts information into the story by using Hermione and Dumbledore. Hermione continously thinks it's a girl who has written the extra notes in the book, at least until she finds out its Snape book. So, it might just be that it was Lily's handwriting and not Snape's. /Fabian From juli17 at aol.com Sat Sep 17 07:52:06 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 03:52:06 EDT Subject: Sadistic actions (Snape) versus sadistic person (Umbridge) Message-ID: <76.5bb98361.305d2526@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140336 The biggest obstacle to reaching an agreement about *anything* on this list is how we define any given concept under discussion. (No criticism, just an observation). Evil, abuse, sadism...these are all concepts that can have a diverse range of meanings, which are partly based on our individual feelings, experiences and influences in our environment. So all I can really do is argue my concept of a sadistic person. First, I'm not really comfortable labelling people unless that label defines the clear majority of that person's actions/interactions. Take any positive or negative trait, and virtually every human has exhibited that trait at one time or another. We've all felt sadistic pleasure at another's misfortune, been verbally abusive to a friend or family member (and if you have siblings, it was probably a regular mode of communication during those growing up years!), and we've all committed an "everyday evil" act or two. Or three. Within the WW, Harry has done all three of the above, as have most of the other WW characters, but I don't see him in any way close to being defined by any of those occasional actions. So what about Snape? Is he a sadistic person? I.e., is that attitude/intent apparent during most of his actions/interactions? Or does he merely sometimes act in a sadistic manner? I believe it is the latter when it comes to Snape. Certainly we've seen him act in a sadistic manner. Both telling Hermoine "I see no difference" and breaking Harry's turned in potion (or simply taking pleasure in the fact that it fell and broke), seem to be responses motivated by nothing more than enjoyment in seeing someone else's pain. Still, this doesn't seem to define most of Snape's actions. For instance, I think Snape's belittlement of Neville is based fundamentally on frustration. Snape expects a high level of competence from his students, probably too high given not every student can possibly perform at an equal level. And when he doesn't get what he expects he lashes out at the offender, not primarily out of a desire to cause the offender pain, but because he's so irritated by incompetence. This is NOT nice behavior, BTW, but it's not sadism. Similarly, while Snape "started" it with Harry in PS/SS, there is no doubt Harry's subsequent behavior on many occasions has only cemented Snape's enmity. Snape no doubt believes Harry deserves the continual verbal lashings he delivers--he may even believe he's doing Harry a favor by taking him down a peg or two on a regular basis (and we're talking about what Snape *believes* not what he's actually accomplishing, which is Harry's enmity in return). And while Snape is very mistaken in his approach, even to the point of meanness, I don't think it is done with sadistic intent. Which is the difference between him and Umbridge. She *does* act with sadistic intent. She's not trying to teach Harry anything, or punishing him for actions that she could honestly perceive as deserving of punishment (especially at that level). She is punishing him *primarily* for the sadistic pleasure she derives from his pain as evidenced by her reactions. I might add too, that while Sirius and James are jerks in the pensieve scene, and some of their actions border on sadistic, they don't come off as primarily sadistic people there. They are being mean and cruel, but it's based on a long history of enmity with Snape. Peter, OTOH, who actually takes no action, *is* sadistic. While James and Sirius seem to react out of both anger and dislike of Snape, Peter seems to be only focused on his enjoyment of Snape's pain and humiliation to the point of salivating. (I found nothing James, Sirius or Snape did in that scene nearly as disturbing as Peter's displaced joy.) I also give Snape a pass on his behavior involving the Marauders, especially Sirius. Those two have lived a lifetime hating each other and delighting in causing each other pain. It may be mutual sadism, but to me it's a behavior restricted to that particular relationship, not a general trait that either applies to everyone in general. IMO, they both deserved what they gave the other, since neither would make even a minimal effort to bury the hatchet (except in the other's back, of course). And that Snape would take pleasure in the idea of Sirius being kissed by a dementor is hardly surprising, given the hateful history between them. I'm betting Sirius would have been seriously pleased himself if the situation were reversed. (I also note here that Snape had reason to believe Sirius *deserved* that nasty kiss. Even though he'd been told differently, it's not surprising he was reluctant to let go of that long-standing belief in his enemy's guilt.) So, while I believe Snape certainly can be sadistic, I don't see him primarily motivated by sadism. Which is why I don't define him in my mind as a "sadistic person." But that is only my definition, Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 11:06:38 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 11:06:38 -0000 Subject: Sadistic!Snape? (was:Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140337 First let me apologize to the group. I let my enthusiasm run over yesterday, and made far more than my quota of posts. Sorry about that. So, back to our discussion of that cuddly philanthropist and peerless pedagogue, Severus Snape. Betsy Hp: I've remarked on this before, but I think Snape had a very deliberate reason for his opening gambit with Harry in PS/SS. Remember, Harry's celebrity status, at this point, is huge. Harry is hero-worshipped to such an extent that Gryffindor breaks into a gleeful chant when he gets sorted into their house, and a teacher actually faints when he gets Harry in his classroom. Snape, I'm sure, noticed all of this. ... But I believe that exchange shaped Snape's treatment of Harry over the rest of the books. Amiable Dorsai: So he formed a snap impression of Harry from one classroom interaction, either didn't bother to compare notes with his colleagues or ignored their opinions, blinded himself to any evidence that might contradict that opinion, and based his entire approach to Harry on that basis. So he's not a sadist, he's a crank. Gotcha. Thank you for the correction. Betsy Hp: It's canon now that there *was* a thought within certain circles that Harry may become a Dark Lord himself, and that Snape was aware of such theories. And Harry does bare an uncanny physical resemblance to James, who did not handle his popularity well (from Snape's POV anyway). Amiable Dorsai: Ah, therefore he decided to alienate the budding young Voldepup, insuring that he, the one person who saw through this Dark Lordlet's facade, would be in no position to influence his character for the better. The brilliance of this gambit just takes my breath away. This then, was not sadism, but stupidity. Check. > >>Amiable Dorsai: > ...insulting an orphan's father... Betsy Hp: Whenever Snape brought up James it was usually (IIRC) when Harry was doing something colossally stupid, like sneaking into Hogsmeade when there was a mass murderer out for his blood. Snape, with good reason (especially after reading some of Sirius's "advice"), was trying to turn Harry away from emulating his father. Snape chose a piss-poor way of going about it, I grant. But again, I see a reason for his behavior. Enjoyment of Harry's suffering wasn't it, IMO. Amiable Dorsai: Because sarcasm and insulting James has always done so much to influence Harry's behavior for the better. Not a sadist then, just a one-trick pony. Okay, got it. > >>Amiable Dorsai: > ...insulting a student's looks... Betsy Hp: And by doing so kept his Seeker out of detention and on the field... Amiable Dorsai: He excused despicable behavior from a student because that student was on his House team? So he's not a sadist, he's a cheater. Roger. I'm really beginning to appreciate your analysis of Snape's character. > >>Amiable Dorsai: > ...playing favorites... Betsy Hp: While not a good thing for a teacher to do, I'm not sure how this is sadistic behavior. Amiable Dorsai: You're right, it does serve better to illuminate his other character flaws, doesn't it? > >>Amiable Dorsai: > ...casting aspersions on a student's intelligence to another teacher in front of the student and his classmates... Betsy Hp: Again, not good behavior, but hardly sadistic. (McGonagall made sure everyone in Gryffindor house saw Neville as the house dunce. Why isn't she labeled sadistic?) Amiable Dorsai: Actually, I agree with you that McGonagall is sometimes over the top. This excuses Snape how, exactly? > >>Amiable Dorsai: > ...making an unjustified criticism of another teacher to that teacher's class... Betsy Hp: As McGonagall does with Trelawney? Again, not very sadistic, to my mind. Amiable Dorsai: Let's see... McGonagall reassured a student who was badly shaken by a spurious prediction of his own imminent death; Snape tried to undercut a colleague against whom he nursed a grudge. Yep, perfectly comparable situations. > >>Amiable Dorsai: > ...threatening to poison a student's pet and then being abusive after he's thwarted... Betsy Hp: Actually, I'd catagorize the toad incident as trying to vividly drive home the lesson that the potions the students are making are *supposed* to be consumed. Frankly, I think Snape was trying to reach Neville here... Amiable Dorsai: 'Cause, you know, threats and intimidation have always worked so well to improve Neville's class performance. Kicking it up a notch will surely create even better results... Betsy Hp: ...It didn't work, unfortunately. And taking five points for Hermione's cheating strikes me as something much less than abusive and certainly not sadistic. Amiable Dorsai: No, just inconsistent. Snape punished Harry because he didn't help Neville; he punished Hermione because she did. Snape does seem to enjoy these little lose-lose situations, doesn't he? Nope, not sadistic at all. Nope, nope. >>Amiable Dorsai: > And then there's the time he tried to have the very souls of two innocent men destroyed. Betsy Hp: You mean the mass-murderer and the teacher who helped him into the school where he nearly killed a student? Those innocent men? Shall we accuse Harry of sadism since he expressed a desire to see Sirius dead? Amiable Dorsai: Harry was willing to hear evidence that countered his preconceptions. Snape was not. It's been suggested that Snape was merely having a bit of fun with Sirius and Lupin, that he wouldn't *really* turn them over to be Kissed before new evidence could be presented. But that can't be right can it? You've proven beyond all doubt that Snape hasn't a sadistic bone in his body. So what are we to make of this? That Snape's sense of justice is less well developed that that of a 13-year-old? Sure, I can live with that. > >>Lealess: > Honestly, Snape is not cut out to be a teacher. > Betsy Hp: I think he's an excellent teacher, myself. I just think he's of a certain (out of favor now unfortunately) sort. It's been discussed ad nauseum, but I don't see any evidence that any student suffered unduly in his classroom. And yes, that includes Neville. Neville who still has a pet toad and who doesn't seem all that afraid of Snape anymore, IMO. Amiable Dorsai: Nor has he any hope of advancing further in a subject closely related to his best field of study. It's kind of ungrateful of me, I suppose, to be so hard on old Snapey; back in college, I used to tutor high school students in math and science. Lazy teachers like Snape provided me with pretty good spending money. It was particularly gratifying, not to mention lucrative, when I found a student who was quite capable of learning the subject, but who had been turned off by incompetent instruction. There was one math teacher, who, like Snape, tried to intimidate his students into learning the material themselves, rather than take the effort to teach it. He was always good for two or three clients a year. Worked out for almost everyone: I had gas and date money, my clients did well enough to pass (one is now an electrical engineer, so at some point, this kid who was "hopeless" at math was solving partial differential equations), the teacher was able to slack off. It saddens me that such teachers are now, as you write, "out of favor" how are today's college students to earn an honest dollar, if that's true? Amiable Dorsai From mauranen at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 11:36:29 2005 From: mauranen at yahoo.com (jekatiska) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 11:36:29 -0000 Subject: Keep Harry Horcrux Free Challenge! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140338 I'm snipping off a lot of very interesting theories about Harry being or not being a horcrux and chipping in my own thoughts (apologies if these have come up time and time again, I can only come and have a quick browse not that often...) It occurred to me that the prophecy gives a clue here: "neither can live while the other survives" - so Voldemort must kill Harry in order to live. Or vice versa, of course. There's a defeinite paradox here if you ask me: horcruxes are made so as to make the person immortal. so destroying one quite clearly weakens their life. I also wonder that Voldemort should put a piece of his soul inside a mortal creature at all. After all, they inevitably die in the end, taking the piece of soul with them, as far as I understand. Also, putting a piece of your soul inside another human being seems awfully risky - and in my opinion Voldemort is too much of a coward to take such risks. Jekatiska From zeldaricdeau at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 11:36:28 2005 From: zeldaricdeau at yahoo.com (zeldaricdeau) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 11:36:28 -0000 Subject: JKR's idea of horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140339 Auria wrote: > where did JKR get the idea of horcruxes? I mean its a very > unusual concept - to split one's soul and 'keep' a piece in a > separate place to gain immortality - and I wonder if JKR had > gotten this idea from any other literature somewhere or if its > entirely unique? zeldaricdeau now: I'm sure this has been mentioned in a post here somewhere, but as there are so very many and this post doesn't yet have a direct response I shall try to offer some assistance :). I believe the idea of sealing a portion of your soul in an inanimate object for the purposes of achieving immortality comes from mythology. Certain Welsh legends, maybe? Unfortunately, I can't remember where exactly although the concept does appear in a young adult novel by Lloyd Alexander entitled "Taran Wanderer" (part of a series which I highly recommend no matter how old you are called "The Prydain Chronicles"). The series is strongly based on Welsh myths (specifically many appearing in The Mabinogion) so I suspect the idea has an origin there. Hope that helps, -ZR From muellem at bc.edu Sat Sep 17 11:53:01 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 11:53:01 -0000 Subject: Sadistic!Snape?/Potterverse and reality In-Reply-To: <017201c5bb42$829d7500$3621f204@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140340 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > > Sherry adds: > > Let's not forget either, that when Harry walks in the door at Hogwarts, from > the very first day till the end of GOF his *fourth* year, the wizarding > world was *not* at war. Voldemort was dead, so everyone believed. some, > such as Dumbledore, may have had doubts as to how long that would last, but > there was no war. So, Snape and as an extension the entire WW had no reason > to bully their children or toughen them up or in any other way prepare them > for war. I don't understand the whole mindset that says a teacher can be as > utterly rotten and cruel as Snape is to his students, in the name of > toughening them up or preparing the for a war that did not even exist. ahh...here is where I disagree. Snape is still DD's spy and Dumbledore believes Voldemort will come back. Since DD believes that, I am sure that Snape also believes that LV is not dead. And even Snape did believe that LV was dead, there are other *big bads* out there - there will always be someone down the line that will take on that position. As in RL, the WW has had their share of dark wizards. We also have all the Death Eaters who aren't in Azkaban - who are nurturing little DE's to be(such as Draco) and truly nasty pieces of work, like Umbridge. War is something that no one can avoid. Human civilizations thruout the centuries have proven that. I don't see why the WW is any different. colebiancardi From parisfan_ca at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 12:08:11 2005 From: parisfan_ca at yahoo.com (laurie goudge) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 05:08:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lily and Snape WAS: Snape/Harry coincidence? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050917120812.96605.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140341 > > Auria writes: > Actually I think it was probably the other way round > - that Lily was > helping Snape and that he was taking 'notes' on her > techniques by > writing it all in his textbook. It would then be > ironic that Harry is > learning from the HBP notes that actually were his > own mother's flashes > of genius. that is certainly an interesting idea. But if it was Lilly that was the whiz at potions when they were in school dosen't account for the fact that it seems like Snape is so gifted at it later on--unless he learned to love it because of Lilly.... laurie __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Sep 17 12:27:45 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:27:45 -0000 Subject: Keep Harry Horcrux Free Challenge! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140343 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jekatiska" wrote: Jekatiska: > I'm snipping off a lot of very interesting theories about Harry being > or not being a horcrux and chipping in my own thoughts (apologies if > these have come up time and time again, I can only come and have a > quick browse not that often...) > > It occurred to me that the prophecy gives a clue here: "neither can > live while the other survives" - so Voldemort must kill Harry in order > to live. Or vice versa, of course. There's a defeinite paradox here if > you ask me: Geoff: I have commented in the past that I tended to avoid getting into the Horcrux discussion until I broke cover in message 139859 to discuss why I thought Harry was not a Horcrux. Contributions to this topic have been appearing on the group either supporting this idea or denying it and, having given more thought to it, I am making another foray out from my trench to pose some more ideas. I believe that if Harry is a Horcrux with a soul fragment inside him, this would be a plot device which would create problems and possible paradoxes within the Potterverse which Jo Rowling has crafted. One of the points which has often been made about the Harry Potter world is that choice is paramount to the action. The pivotal statement is probably the oft-quoted one made by Dumbledore in Book 2: "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." (COS "Dobby's Reward" p.245 UK edition) Harry has made choices ? sometimes consciously, sometimes not ? which have guided him towards the side of light, of compassion and acceptance of the need to be prepared to tackle Voldemort. Tom Riddle, on the other hand, has set his mind to becoming powerful and has chosen evil and selfish ways of doing it. Others, such as Snape and more recently Draco, are making choices which are rather ambivalent leaving us still uncertain about where their final loyalties will lie. I feel that this possibly reflects Jo Rowling's views on Christianity. The Christian faith is a faith of choices. No one is a Christian by birth or privilege but by choice. But, if Harry is a Horcrux, this ability to choose is being seriously eroded and there then seems to be an argument for those who take the Calvinistic view of predestination. Let us therefore consider the various scenarios which might emerge if Harry is indeed "encasing" a piece of You-Know-Who's soul. If he is, then it would seem that, in order to kill Voldemort, he will have to sacrifice himself to do it. If he chooses to walk away from the situation and decides to ignore the prophecy, then he is condemning the Wizarding World to a likely takeover by the Death Eaters. Even then, his security would not be guaranteed because Voldemort would still feel unsafe as long as Harry was around so our hero would spend his time in hiding, looking over his shoulder all the time and knowing that he had left his friends to the tender mercy of the Dark side. But we do know from Book 6 that he is deciding to face up to Voldemort. Ginny says "I knew this would happen in the end. I knew you wouldn't be happy unless you were hunting Voldemort." And for Harry himself, `Moving felt much more bearable than sitting still: just as setting out as soon as possible to track down the Horcruxes and kill Voldemort would feel better than waiting to do it.' (HBP "The White Tomb" p.603 UK edition) However, this is where our paradoxes begin to raise their heads. Harry arrives for a stand-off with the Dark Lord having dealt with all the other Horcruxes. I can see three scenarios here, all of which present problems if Harry is a Horcrux. Number one. Harry apparently kills Voldemort. The last remnant of soul in him is destroyed but ? there is still a piece of soul in Harry. What happens? Does Voldemort become disembodied again? What happens if you have a piece of soul but it is not within you? Does he become an empty shell like a soul-sucked Dementor victim? Or would he be able in some disembodied way to seize on the piece in Harry? I am reminded of the Lord of the Rings here when Gandalf says that, if the Ring is thrown into Mount Doom, Sauron would not die but fall so far that the possibility of him arising again could not even be imagined. Would that happen here and Voldemort become almost a ghost figure? Presumably, as per the words of the prophecy, Harry would have vanquished him, but what of the future? Number two. Voldemort kills Harry. this is the worst case scenario because it would leave Voldemort as the victor in possession of the tattered remnants of his soul and with no viable opposition to him. A new Dark age would descend upon the Wizarding world. Number three. This I consider to have a low probability. They fire spells at each other and kill other simultaneously and both soul fragments are destroyed. The last time they did something like this, we saw the Priori Incantatem effect. If, as I imagine, they are still using the "brother wands", Dumbledore says that "they will not work properly against each other.." (GOF "The Parting of the Ways" p.605 UK edition). So, unless the spells do not "collide" there is a very low likelihood of them killing each other. My feeling is, that for the purposes of the plot, scenario two seems to be unlikely. I cannot see Jo Rowling, having brought us so far along the way, allowing Voldemort to win by a flick of the wand. Scenario one provides an unsatisfying resolution to the problem of really vanquishing him and scenario three hints at a rerun of the GOF event which would leave the fulfilment of the prophecy unresolved. So, for better or for worse, I'm sticking with the Harry-is-not-a- Horcrux camp as I feel that, within our fictional universe, JKR needs to show that the choices, the efforts, the sacrifices of those whose have stood alongside Harry, and those who have taught him to use his gifts have not worked in vain. This is not the real world, it is fantasy and we need a satisfying closure. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 12:59:35 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 05:59:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Emma & the HBP (was Re: Harry Potter and Elizabeth Bennet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050917125935.1633.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140344 > Potioncat: > Have not seen the "Emma" movie, IIRC, the reviews said there was > little in common between the book and the movie. I have to respond to this. I've read the book "Emma" at least ten times (knowing the ending does not spoil the re-read, IMO) and have seen the movie almost as many times. As movie adaptations go, it's excellent and pre-stardom Gwyneth Paltrow (it was her star-making role) is perfect. (The only clunker is McEwan's hairpiece [he plays Frank Churchill]; it looks like a small gopher has crawled under his hat to die.) And did you notice that in the big scene where Knightley tells off Emma for her rudeness to Miss Bates - the dialogue is word for freakin' word out of the book? No additions; no substitutes. And it works perfectly! It would be worth the price of a trip to England just to lay flowers on Jane Austen's grave. Seriously, if you've never read "Emma", "Pride and Prejudice" or "Northanger Abbey" - do so. You'll wonder at how you've survived without them. > Potioncat: > The main comparison is that Emma believes she knows why certain > other characters are behaving in a certain way. We see them through > Emma's eyes. In the end, we discover many of them had very > different reasons > for their behavior than Emma and the reader thought. Sound > familiar? Very true. And I would add that Emma spends a lot of time manipulating people based on her perceptions of their best interests - and at the climax is painfully aware of how her mistakes might have resulted in ruining people's lives. Disaster is averted very close to the last possible moment. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 13:29:01 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 06:29:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hearing from the Great Middle...well not really... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050917132901.96561.qmail@web53113.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140345 > vmonte wrote: > Something that I find interesting in the Snape debates is that > nothing JKR says in her interviews about Snape is ever > considered as canon evidence. I think that if JKR thought that people weren't evaluating Snape's character and motivations and future actions because they felt that something she'd said in an interview ("sadistic", "isn't too nice") made the effort irrelevant, she'd never give an interview again until the last book was published and out for at least a year. Also the interviews are off-the-cuff and spontaneous and they reflect the knowledge the reader has of the characters at that moment in the series' publication. So I don't see why they should attain the level of "canon" compared to what she actually wrote in the books. At Betsy says, it's more like "commentary" rather than an addition to the text. __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 14:29:20 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 14:29:20 -0000 Subject: Sadistic!Snape? (was:Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140346 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kiricat4001" wrote: > Marianne: > > And, whether or not one wants to characterize this brief exercise > in terrorizing Neville about the possible demise of his pet as > sadistic, what has always bothered me is that Snape never changes > his approach to Neville. Obivously he knows what effect he has on > Neville, right? I mean, Snape is a superb Occlumens so he must be > able to "read" Neville. And, his long career as a double agent > must have honed his skills in reading people through their > slightest facial ticks and reactions to a razor's edge. So, I can't > for a moment believe he had no idea of his impact on Neville. This has always made me wonder, too, about whether a fundamental assumption is correct. Okay, let's take as given that Snape is very perceptive. This is a cardinal tenet of DDM!Snape, after all: Snape is a super-spy who can read situations well enough to know what is going on very quickly. He has to, in order to protect his very precarious position. He's good enough to realize in a short time what he has to do on the tower. If Snape is that perceptive, then he'd have to realize what effect he's having on both Harry and Neville, right? And so he must then be doing it deliberately, since he doesn't change. Can he help himself? I think he must be able to have enough self-control, otherwise how could he possibly be the super-spy that he is? Aren't all of Snape's actions careful, calculated, and deliberate in this model? Now we still have the open category of "Yes, he's doing it deliberately, but he's doing it for the best of reasons." Which then raises the question: what kinds of reasons would necessitate keeping one student scared and lacking confidence, and building a large level of enmity with another student who's desperately important to the destruction of Voldie, something DDM!Snape must also badly want? > Maybe what it comes down to is that Snape has no idea that not all > people will react the same way to the same style of teaching. > Snape realized that Neville would bumble his way through Potions, > and, since that was all he could do, that was all Snape expected. > It never seemed to occur to him that perhaps trying a different > tact with this student might have gotten better results. Option three: he doesn't really care about Neville learning; at least not enough to try a different tact. After all, I'm sure that spy! Snape has had to use any number of methods and is used to weaseling his way around situations there. But it just doesn't matter in the classroom. I can buy that, almost. >> Lupinlore: >> And I totally disagree. Snape is a textbook example of petty >> sadism which JKR has depicted perfectly. The sad fact that he is >> allowed to teach is one of the deepest sins (and I use that word >> quite deliberately) of the Wizarding World, and helps account for >> the fact that so many fans have such deep contempt for that world, >> and would likely be happy to see Voldemort destroy it were it not >> for such rare examples as the Weasleys. Note for Betsy: if you venture further out in the wide world of fandom in LJ, you'll find a surprisingly large number of people, both pro- and anti-Dumbledore (he's an exceedingly divisive character) who actually think of the WW as a dystopia, and would never want to live there. Surprised? -Nora needs to steal her copy of Ordinary Vices back from a friend, the book which discusses the damage doable by everyday petty evils From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Sat Sep 17 14:37:58 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 14:37:58 -0000 Subject: Magical Power Was :Keep Harry Horcrux Free Challenge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140347 > Elyse wrote: > >In PoA Lupin says if your soul is sucked out you become "an > >empty shell" devoid of thought, feeling, you simply exist. So this > >indicates not only that the mind and personality is a function of > >the but also that your magical power - the ability to harness magic > >out of ether or whatever - still resides in you. Only now that you > >have lost your mind you cannot use it. > > Saraquel: > I can't quite follow you here, are you saying that because Lupin did > not actually specify that you lost your magical powers as well, that > they therefore must still be in you? If so, I'm not totally > convinced about that as evidence. Elyse: No, this is not based on Lupin's words, really. It is just my conclusion from the various combinations of soul, mind, magical power in the books. For instance, we have Muggles, who possess soul, mind, body, but no magical power. then we have wizards who have soul, mind, body, and magical power. then there are Squibs who have soul, mind, body, but no magical power. then youve got a victim of soul sucking who does not have a soul or a mind/personality but body and presumably magical power remain intact. Ghosts are souls who do not have bodies, cannot wield magical power but their mind/personality stays with them. Portraits, which are not souls, do not have bodies or magical powers but seem to be a retention of the person's personality or mind. And finally, Voldemort, who had a piece of a soul, which, when ripped out of his body,and still contained his mind/ personality. We can speculate that he did keep his magical power since he says "Any spell that could have restored me required the use of a wand" - a wand he could not hold because he did not have a body. But I wonder about his powers remaining attachesd to his soul since Harry got them with the rebounded AK and Riddle in the diary had them even though he was only a memory. >From this I believe that the soul, the mind or personality the body and magical power are separate components. I daresay I may be wrong, but I'm sure someone can argue for this better than I can. Elyse > > Ceridwen wrote: > >(Going off on a tangent here, could the power source reside in the > >heart? If someone who is not magical does perform magic in book 7, > >could it be because they have found their heart/courage in a > >desperate situation, like mothers who heave cars off their kids? > >And, if being 'heartsick' over a lost or oblivious love can diminish > >one's magic, then that would be a heart effect, too) Ceridwen wrote again: BIG SNIP> So, I would place the power center of magic in the heart specifically, and if it then powers the magic in the blood, then that makes sense. When there is a disconnect in the emotions of the heart, the magic suffers. Elyse: I really like this idea. The question over which we should have obsessed, to me, is where magical power resides. Maybe thats why Dumbledore had to cut himself and spill blood when they went to retrieve the Horcrux. Spilling blood would make your magical powers weaker, thus diminishing your chances of destroying the horcrux or getting out of the cave alive. Elyse From bob.oliver at cox.net Sat Sep 17 14:35:44 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 14:35:44 -0000 Subject: Sadistic!Snape? /Different canon interpretations/A bit of Star Wars In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140348 > > >>Betsy Hp: > > > Probably because the books don't plainly state it at all. > > > >>Lupinlore: > > Errr, actually they do. On each and every page where Snape is > > shown interacting with Harry, Hermione, Ron, or Neville. > > Betsy Hp: > Ummm, no they do not. If they did I suspect you'd quote canon to > prove it. But you don't so... Lupinlore: That's interesting. You would be, in terms of what I would and would not do, completely and totally wrong. I think that quoting canon as proof text in terms of philosophical and moral issues (as opposed to simple matters of fact such as what color somebody's eyes are) is a fundamental misunderstanding of the function of canon (any canon, not just the Harry Potter text). Canon contains many currents. How one uses or does not use canon, or even better how one approaches canon, is determined by which current one engages. If one is talking about pure textual analysis of the type "what word is used where" then canon DOES become proof, as the text itself is the subject of argument. Moral and philosophical issues do not function that way, however. Moral and ethical understandings arise from a gestalt process in which a community of interpretation (however large that community is) uses canon and allied texts (e.g. JKR's interviews) as a creative catalyst for its own understandings and interpretations. While the actual and literal wording of the text is important, it is not proof of anything, but only a foundational point that is often expanded, modified, and even sometimes over ridden (usually in an attempt to make an internally contradictory text make more sense on the level of interpretation). In a very real sense, the moral and ethical meaning of canon is whatever a community of interpretation decides it is. Snape is sadistic if an interpretive community decrees him to be so. In this you are right that the interviews are no more proof text than is canon. JKR has an opinion on these matters that is no more binding than anyone else's. Interpretations from different communities will vary radically and the decision about which is supreme is a social and political process, not one decided by further analysis or academic debate. Eventually one community of interpretation becomes dominant. The members of the community believe, quite sincerely, that there interpretation is the correct one, of course, and act accordingly -- indeed, they would be cowardly and lacking in moral character if they did not. However, from outside the political process there is no proof text that can be applied to settle argument, no person, even the author, who can issue a definitive ruling (well, there is one person who can rule definitively, that being God, but I don't think he's going to favor us with an opinion this side of the General Resurrection). > > > > >>Lupinlore: > > The sad fact that he is allowed to teach is one of the deepest > > sins (and I use that word quite deliberately) of the Wizarding > > World, and helps account for the fact that so many fans have such > > deep contempt for that world, and would likely be happy to see > > Voldemort destroy it were it not for such rare examples as the > > Weasleys. > > Betsy Hp: > Many "fans" hold the WW in contempt? Why on earth do they call > themselves fans? It's like saying, I loved Star Wars, except for the > annoying Jedi stuff. That is absolutely possible, and what I in fact do say. I do love the Star Wars series, but I find the Jedi philosophy, as presented, to be shallow -- a kind of superficial reading of Buddhism mixed with some popular New Age slogans. As the older Jedi philosophy (that of Anakin's youth) was presented, I found it fundamentally wrong-headed about the nature of human reactions and emotions. Nevertheless, even though I found the Jedi deeply suspect, and their philosophy not all that appealing, there are many, many things I love about the Star Wars universe. Just as there are many things I love about the Harry Potter books, although I find the WW morally corrupt and generally - in the terms of institutions and practices - worthy of nothing but contempt. Betsy Hp: And it's interesting that you'd bring up the > Weasley family as the example of all that's good in the world. Two > of their sons nearly murdered a fellow student. Why do they get a > pass? (All students are equal. Gryffindors are more equal than > others?) > Lupinlore: Absolutely Gryffindors are more equal than others, at least, as we have seen so far, more equal than Slytherins. The Weasleys are nice, they get a break. That's the way real social and personal interactions work, and even often political interactions on the petite scale. The Slytherins are mean and unlikeable, they don't get a break - at least not the same kind of break the Gryffindors get. Once again, that's the way real social and person interactions work. That's the way people are in any sort of realistic universe. I think the portrayal of this dual standard between the "nice" and the "mean" people is very well done of JKR in that it is very believable and realistic. In fact, it isn't even a dual standard. It is a realistic portrayal of the fact that moral, social, and personal judgements are not academic or legal disputations, but arise out of a gestalt function in which they are affected and largely determined by one's overall experience of an entire person or institution. Lupinlore From sunnylove0 at aol.com Sat Sep 17 15:18:05 2005 From: sunnylove0 at aol.com (sunnylove0 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 11:18:05 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sadistic!Snape?/Potterverse and reality Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140349 In a message dated 9/16/2005 10:45:19 PM Mountain Standard Time, sherriola at earthlink.net writes: Let's not forget either, that when Harry walks in the door at Hogwarts, from the very first day till the end of GOF his *fourth* year, the wizarding world was *not* at war. Voldemort was dead, so everyone believed. some, such as Dumbledore, may have had doubts as to how long that would last, but there was no war. I think Frank and Alice Longbottom, Quirrel, and Cedric Diggory would disagree with you, if they could. As long as Voldemort and his followers are around terrorizing, killing, and brainwashing, the war is not over. Which is why Harry is at the Dursleys every summer break. DD knew that Vapor!mort would not stay in Albania forever. Amber [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Sat Sep 17 15:41:30 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 15:41:30 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape and more Snape! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140350 Elyse - Boy do you guys post a lot over the weekend! I'm having a hard time keeping up! I'm just replying to a lot of them here, even though I have a chemistry test tomorrow. And they are all defending Snape, so I give you fair warning before leaping in. Pippin: But I also think that Snape's instinct to be protective is damaged, so that when he does protect someone it is not out of animal instinct but actually, in JKR's eyes, nobler because it is a choice, though Snape isn't always noble enough to make it. Elyse: Pippin, you are wonderful! I keep thinking along the same lines. I do agree that Snape is a dark wizard in impulse or in essence. But it is his choice not to act on those impulses that shows his strength and change in conviction. LittleBitGal: I think your use of "anti-social Snape" is a good description of Snape. I don't think he cares to be around people. He does care that students learn and learn properly. I had never thought of Snape as being evil until I began reading the posts here. I thought of him as a loaner, a perfectionist, maybe a bit too quick to judge others; but never evil. Elyse: I have to admit that I wasnt the Snape fanatic I seem to be before HBP. I certainly did not think he was nice or anything but he never seemed to be evil either. I took Dumbledore at his word in GoF. As for the anti social bit, I believe he is uncomfortable in groups of people. I think this stems from a deep mistrust and suspicion of their motives. Of course this can be explained away by a possibly abusive childhood, bullying by the Marauders, and lack of social skills. But I very often wonder if he had a friend he believed in utterly, one who may be dead or one who betrayed him for popularity. The Slytherin gang doesnt cut it with me. I see them as the peer pressure exerted to use the Dark Arts. Alla: I used to think that JKR wishes Happy birthdays to good guys only, now of course I am not so sure about it. :-) So, going back to the subject of Snape - he is on the calendar, right? Elyse: I would love to know his birthdate if anyone can provide it to me. I have a passing interest in Astrology and I am very disappointed that JKR doesnt use more of it in Divination classes. Lupinlore: If you want an argument from fairness, then consider that it isn't easy being nice, and therefore it only stands to reason that nice people are accorded a reward in most situations -- that reward being that they get breaks not given to mean people. >SNIP< Nice people are forgiven for minor failings, while the failings of mean people are held against them to the letter of the law and the rulebook. Elyse: Thats not a justification, Lupinlore, but an excuse. A slightly valid one, but an excuse all the same. To illustrate, we only have to consider James' bullying of Snape. The fact that Harry was disturbed by it was an excellent thing. And Sirius and Lupin's excuses were to put it simply , quite pathetic. I mean, he and James hated each other, it was just "one of those things" or "James hated the Dark Arts" were bad enough. But then Lupin actually says "You father and Sirius were the best in the school at whatever they did" coupled with Sirius going on about how James was so popular, and so good at quidditch and such a good student "- and if they sometimes got carried away-" " -if we were sometimes arrogant little berks, you mean" I feel "carried away" and "arrogant berks" to be euphemisms which do not remotely correspond to the humiliation of having your underwear exposed in front of the whole school. Just because James was popular and the regular Quidditch Cup winning hero DOES NOT justify or excuse his behaviour in any way. This is the reason why Football Jocks and The Popular Good Looking Guy are stereotypes for bullies along with supposedly macho hazing rituals in fraternities. And in this case, it left lasting damage, so no matter if James was super smart, charming , wonderful in every way, it still brings out a very emotional response in me, and makes me sick, despite never having been bullied or humiliated myself. And as a side thought, I think it was a sort of fitting punishment that James, who was a bully, died to save his son, and in the process left him to be bullied and abused, not by Snape, but by the Dursleys for ten long years. Please dont think me twisted in any way. I admire your arguments in every eloquent post you put up, and I wish each time that I had your skill, not only with words, but the ability to see different sides of an issue. > Jen: Snape inspires so many different emotions and thoughts, and my > bar for evil is different. But I'd rather debate it now & have the > chance to disagree than read the series 5 years from now with the > outcome a known quantity--we're the lucky ones. Elyse: I would like to agree wholeheartedly with you Jen, I consider the members of this board to be fabulous, intelligent people, and I am privileged to discuss theories with them. Can I use the opportunity to thank all of you for the fun I have got out of reading many intersting posts and marvellous arguments back and forth? P.S. - I would like to thank bboyminn/Steve for his support on the Keep Harry Horcrux Free Challenge about needing a body to use magical power. Didnt read it when I replied to Saraquel. P.P.S - Finwitch wrote a very interesting post about DD's trust keeping Snape on the good side. I might be able to expand on it once I get Snape's birthday. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Sep 17 16:09:10 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 16:09:10 -0000 Subject: Face it, there is a reward for being nice (was Re: Sadistic Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140351 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > > Snape did comparatively little bullying of Harry this year, (there's > > no mention of how every class is a torture) , and none at all > > of Neville, AFAWK. Neville is pretty much bully proof now, I think. > > He's learned to appreciate himself for who he is instead of who > > he thought he should be. Odd how humility is the real secret of > > self-esteem. And it didn't take an apology from anybody. > > Why, Pippin--is that 'no harm no foul'? That's a dangerous and > delicate road to walk down. :) > > We can argue that Neville has not been permanently damaged, in part due to Neville's own innate character and resources for coping. Does that diminish the moral wrongness of Snape's actions towards him? Pippin: If actions like Snape's seldom or never cause severe damage, then yes, I'd say the moral wrongness is diminished, compared to acts that consistently do cause such damage. Snape is nastier than he needs to be, and that's an abuse of his power. He enjoys it and that's sadistic, loosely speaking. But-- If Snape's abuse of his powers cannot be shown to threaten the children and does not violate the rules of his society, then the only thing that's being deeply offended is our sensibilities...and that's a dangerous guide to the rights and wrongs of other cultures. Nora: If we wanted to say 'no harm' at everything that didn't result in permanent physical injury, then most all of the bullying in the books goes off the table, poof. Pippin: I think we can say now that the wizards are not as vulnerable to psychological injury as we are. If really dangerous Dark Wizards only pop up once every hundred years or so, if serial killers are so rare that Slughorn is shocked at the very notion, if Draco, despite being raised by the Malfoys and schooled in Slytherin, is still salvageable...then they're just way tougher than you'd think. Even though they hurt just as much as we do, even though when you prick them they bleed, it takes a helluvalot more to damage a wizard than one of us -- we saw that in Umbridge's office, we saw it again in a different way in HBP. In real world terms, Quidditch is absurdly dangerous -- who would let their child participate in a game where iron balls are batted at hundreds of miles per hour towards unprotected skulls? In real world terms, Snape might be dangerously abusive. But in the Potterverse, Quidditich is a bit dangerous and Snape is a bit nasty, that's all. Quidditch may be easier to dismiss as fantasy violence, but it exists in the same world as Snape. As does McGonagall's decision to send Draco into a forest thought to be haunted by child-stealing werewolves. Talk about mental cruelty! And I wonder whether that punishment wasn't at least partly because Lucius Malfoy had been threatening people with Fenrir for years-- which would make McGonagall just as guilty of holding people's fathers against them as Snape is. But that's the way it is at Hogwarts, as Hagrid tells us. Think about that the next time you wish you'd got a Hogwarts letter. It distances us from the characters a little, yes. But that's JKR being post-modern again. Just because something would make the story more affecting doesn't mean it's true. Think of all the little kids who were disappointed that Snape wasn't the villain in SS/PS. Snape makes a much more satisfactory villain than Quirrell or Voldemort, but it doesn't mean that's what he is. Pippin From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Sep 17 16:11:31 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 16:11:31 -0000 Subject: Sadistic!Snape? (was:Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140352 Marianne: > I mean, Snape is a superb Occlumens so he must be > able to "read" Neville. houyhnhnm: How does Occlumency enable the practitioner to read another person? From geebsy at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 16:02:23 2005 From: geebsy at yahoo.com (geebsy) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 16:02:23 -0000 Subject: Remorseful Snape or Recruiting Dumbledore: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140353 With no time to re-read the series yet again ( as I have been busy reading every post I missed after being away for 1 month ;0) I wonder just how Snape shows his remorse and how this makes Dumbledore trust him - We know Snape heard part of the prophecy - We know Voldemort used this information and chose the Potters as his victims rather than the Longbottoms. - we know Dumbledore trusts Snape completely -we know that Snape hates James Potter It is speculated that: -Snape had some feelings for Lily Potter -He sees himself as an accomplice in her death What is the believable scenario: Snape lost control and his life turned into the WW equivelent of a "Lost Weekend" and DD finds Snape lying in Spinners End surrounded by empty bottles of Fire Wiskey....or did SS "return" (HBP- 513 Canada Scholastic) and throw himself prostrate at Dumbledores feet begging forgiveness and remorse. Did DD convince SS that to atone for his evil life he must turn to the good side and be the double agent at the risk of his own life. Also: How can he stand to have Peter P. living with him....HE was the secret keeper and despite S giving volemort the info, It wouldn't have mattered if P had not gone to volemort with the info as well. Two halfs of the same evil deed. Lots of questions and few answers. Sorry:< geebsy From lolita_ns at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 16:06:53 2005 From: lolita_ns at yahoo.com (lolita_ns) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 16:06:53 -0000 Subject: Voldie's Wand and other details In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140354 >> Amiable Dorsai: > > I see the sequence of events something like this: Late Monday night, > or very early Tuesday morning, Voldemort shows up at Godric's Hollow > with Peter Pettigrew in tow. He blows open the door and he and James > duel. Lily runs to another room with Harry, and somehow contacts > Dumbledore, probably by Patronus messenger, then has her own encounter > with Voldemort and is killed. Voldemort makes the mistake of trying > to kill Harry and is ripped from his body. Peter, his world > destroyed, grabs Voldemort's wand and flees. Lolita: This sounds plausible to me, however, I have a different idea - regarding the fact that DD found out what happened in no time (which we have a clue to that he did - he sent Hagrid to pick up Harry before even the ministry found out). I don't think that Lily contacted Dumbledore. I think that Snape contacted DD the moment his dark mark disappeared, he must have figured out that something had happened to LV. DD, who knew the Prophecy (and for that matter, if I am correct in my assumption that SS, in fact, heard the whole prophecy, and not just the beginning of it, SS too knew exactly what must have happened) sent Hagrid to pick up Harry. (No, Snape did not become DD's spy only after LV's demise - why would DD need him then? Also, DD says explicitly, in the trial scene in GoF that Snape rejoined - hmm, this *RE*joined is interesting... why not simply *joined*? - the side of the Light BEFORE LV fell. I have dealt with the exact moment Snape joined hands with DD elsewhere.) Amiable Dorsai: Some time later, Dumbledore recieves the message, and has a > problem--Voldemort has somehow cracked the Fidelius Charm. Lolita: The problem, as I see it, is not in LV cracking the Fidelius (I'll deal with it in a moment). No, the problem is the following: Just how did DUMBLEDORE know where to send Hagrid when the place was hidden by Fidelius Charm? Pettigrew outed the Secret to LV, not to him. Well.. We saw two different instances of Fidelius. In OotP, when DD was the Secret Keeper (and most probably, also the one who cast the spell, unless it needs several persons, like the Unbreakable Vow), Harry couldn't find 12 GP, regardless of the fact that he was brought to right in front of it - by the people who were in the secret, to boot - until he was shown the address in the Secret Keeper's handwriting (and the note was probably charmed to somehow channel DD's words or sth, and thus worked as if DD himself had *told* Harry the location). No one else could find it.* (*Mind you, this is a whole new can of worms. 12 GP was protected by Fidelius. Fair enough. But when Kreacher showed up at Narcissa's door, how come that she didn't figure out that the HQ of the Order must be at 12 GP? It doesn't matter that the house is unplottable, or that it's fidelioused. Narcissa grew up there. She must have known where Kreacher had come from. She also must have known that her once- home passed to Sirius's hands - she knows that he's still alive. She could have easily put 2 and 2 together. So what if the DEs couldn't see the HQ? They could have planted a wizarding equivalent of a bomb to the place they knew the house was, regardless of the fact that they weren't able to see it. Unless Narcissa too had lost her marbles, like the rest of her family, which doesn't ring quite true, seeing how she put the broken mother act and tricked Snape - the untrusting soul extraordinaire - into making the Vow.) This is how the Fidelius charm is supposed to work. Only those that the Secret Keeper himself has let in on the secret can find the place. NO ONE else. No matter what. We have yet to see what happens to 12 GP now that DD is dead. However, the Fidelius in PoA is different. We hear, from Flitwick - who, you will agree, knows his charms - that the Fidelius secret is kept within a *living soul*. This would imply that while the Secret Keeper is alive, the charm works. This means that NO ONE but LV and Pettigrew, including DD, would have been able to find the house in Godric's Hollow, for as long as Pettigrew was alive. Even after the Potters and LV were dead, i.e, in LV's case, as dead as possible. But, as we saw, no one had ANY problems whatsoever in finding the place (DD knew where to send Hagrid, Hagrid found the place easily, and the same goes for Sirius). Just what are we supposed to swallow here? Unless the Secret gets outed with the death of the CASTER of the Fidelius charm (I would bet on Lily, wasn't her wand supposed to be good for Charms?). And this ties neatly with your suggestion that DD had a hard time believing that Sirius betrayed the secret: Amiable Dorsai: At this > point, he probably can't wrap his mind around the idea of Sirius Black > betraying James Potter, so he must conclude that LV has figured out > another way to bust a Fidelius--that means the Longbottoms are in > danger.) Lolita: Personally, I don't think DD had any problems with believing this. For one thing, we heard from Snape that the whole Werewolf episode happened because he was *told* - by Sirius - to enter the passage under the Whomping Willow. (I admit that I find it next to impossible to believe that Snape would have acted upon ANYTHING Sirius told him - he is not a trusting man, and you can tell that he was not a trusting boy either, especially when Black was concerned - but I've read a nice and plausible explanation of it in an essay on RedHen, so I won't make an issue of it here. Go and read it if you're interested.) Remus's condition was confidential. And Black betrayed it - betrayed him - for the sake of a JOKE. What is worse, of all the people he could have betrayed this thing to, he betrayed it to Snape, who he knew was as mean and spiteful as they go and who would have hugged himself if anything bad had happened to any of the Marauders. No, don't get me wrong, Sirius was not malevolent. He would have never consciously done anything to hurt or endanger his friends. But he was impulsive. And if he was rash enough to betray Remus's condition - and Remus was also his friend - in an instance of adolescent machismo and, I repeat, for the sake of a JOKE - to Snape, of all people,* then I see how both DD and Lupin believed that Sirius betrayed the Potters. (*Snape was known as The Kid With The Curses - the homemade ones we saw were probably neither his only ones nor his most dangerous ones - and it is quite possible that he would have been able to KILL or at least seriously injure Remus. And he would have probably got away with it, seeing that he would be defending himself against a werewolf in the wolf form. And Sirius didn't think of this when he told Snape to enter the passage. And even if he had, he didn't warn Remus at all. No wonder that Remus believed him capable of betraying the Potters.) All this aside, DD knew that LV was a Legilimens - and an extremely powerful one, to boot. Sirius (and for that matter, even Pettigrew) didn't have to TELL LV the secret at all. Locking eyes with him would have been enough. DD KNEW this. And yet, he let the Potters take Sirius for their Secret Keeper. He didn't try to dissuade them, by telling them that, if LV managed to capture Sirius, and even if Sirius flatly refused to tell him the secret, LV would read it with ease just by looking Sirius - who is no Occlumens, and who, at this time of his life, probably doesn't even know what either Legilemcy or Occlumency are - in the eye. Add this to the list of DD's mistakes. And add the whole sorry episode to the list of Black and Potter's instances of sheer stupidity. Has it never occured to either James or Lily that the best thing would be for one of them to be the Secret Keeper? Why drag either Sirius or Peter into this? In OotP, DD, who is the founder and a memebr of the Order is its Secret Keeper. This is how it is supposed to be done. In the case of the Potters, the best course of action would have been for one of them to be the Secret Keeper, and thus to keep both the secret and its keeper where LV could not find them. But no. They had to drag a third person into this, and botch the whole thing by it. (And they probably botched the casting as well. There is no other explanation for everyone being able to find the house when the Keeper outed the secret to just one person, and was still alive. Or at least, there is no other explanation that I can think of.) Amiable Dorsai: > He dispatches the first member of > the Order he can find--Hagrid--to Godric's Hollow. Lolita: Or not. Maybe he doesn't want the Ministry - or anyone else - to see the instances of magic performed there. So, Hagrid would be a natural choice, considering that he doesn't need magic to move heavy stones around. And even if DD doesn't know that the house is destroyed - and I am more inclined to think that he doesn't - Hagrid can protect both himself and Harry without magic. I can't think of any other Order member capable of doing that. Amiable Dorsai: >Dumbledore > checks into things, determines that Harry can be protected by his > mother's sacrifice (How does he know this? That's bothered me for a > while.) Lolita: Well, it's actually quite simple. DD's chocolate frog card says that he discovered 12 uses of dragon BLOOD. The famous gleam of triumph in GoF is DD's reaction to Harry's news of LV taking his BLOOD. In HBP he figures out in no time that LV's secret door in the cave wants a sacrifice in BLOOD. So I think it is quite safe to assume that DD is a specialist in blood magic. Don't forget that he says that Harry is protected for as long as his home is the place where his mother's BLOOD dwells. So, he prepares a spell - possibly one of his own - which makes use of mother's love - her spilt BLOOD - that saved Harry. Whoa, a long one :) Cheers, Lolita. From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Sep 17 16:40:22 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 16:40:22 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape and more Snape! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140355 Elyse: > I would love to know his birthdate if anyone can provide it > to me. I have a passing interest in Astrology and I am very > disappointed that JKR doesnt use more of it in Divination classes. houyhnhnm: January 9, 1959 or 1960, as I'm sure someone else will have already informed you. Try the 1959 chart first. It's really interesting. (Although I'm sure Rowling isn't that serious about backstories for her characters, nor does she seem that knowledgable about astrology. It's probably just coincidence) Sun and moon in conjunction nearly all day. (Inability to separate others' point of view from one's own) Jupiter in Scorpio (Potions ability) Mars square Uranus (violence in one's past) Venus square Neptune (SHIPPERS take note). The aforementioned four planets *almost* form a Grand Cross. I mearly dabbled in astrology once upon a time. You may be able to make more of it than I did. And find the wild card in the deck (Venus in Aquarius?) From oppen at mycns.net Sat Sep 17 16:44:43 2005 From: oppen at mycns.net (ericoppen) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 16:44:43 -0000 Subject: Are there limits to house-elves' obedience? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140356 _Other than Dobby,_ are there any limits to what a master can ask or tell a house-elf to do? Like, say, a slightly-alternate Lucius Malfoy, who had the sense to make sure that his house-elves loved him...and then asked them to "torture this (Muggleborn) for me, dear elves, his existence _displeases_ me." Would they refuse, saying "That is not part of our job, Mister Malfoy sir," or would they get right on it? Wouldn't it be ironic if Hermione found herself faced with house-elves who were deeply loyal to an evil master, and having to fight them? "You don't have to do this! You don't have to obey orders!" "We is house-elves, Miss (Muggleborn)---we _likes_ orders!" ---------- From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 17:09:26 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:09:26 -0000 Subject: Legilimens Snape (Was: Re: Sadistic!Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140357 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > Marianne: > >> I mean, Snape is a superb Occlumens so he must be able to "read" >> Neville. > > houyhnhnm: > > How does Occlumency enable the practitioner to read another person? Check out the Bloomsbury glossary: http://www.bloomsbury.com/harrypotter/content.asp? sec=2&sec2=3&sec3=1&page=1&l=o Now, it's still open (as far as I can tell) whether JKR had a hand in this material (like she did in writing the Chocolate Frog cards), but I think it's probable that little tidbits in here are. And it says "Professor Snape is a superb Occlumens and Legilimens." Not too hard to get that from the books, although his Legilimency skills are never stated as point-blank as the Occlumency skills. He can clearly do it, and there are times in the earlier books when with our current knowledge, we'd think that's what he was doing. -Nora adds in the friendly reminder that one-line posts are naughty From manawydan at ntlworld.com Sat Sep 17 18:14:43 2005 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 19:14:43 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldie's Wand and other details References: <1126911228.1719.28865.m35@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <001801c5bbb3$af4fa660$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 140359 Amiable Dorsai wrote: >He waits around at the Longbottom's, ready for Voldemort to show up, >until he gets an astonishing message from Hagrid: James, Lily, and >Tom Riddle are dead--Harry is still alive! Oh, and by the way, a >bunch of Muggles and probably some wizards, Aurors maybe, are starting >to arrive. What should he do? >He sends another message to Hagrid, telling him not to let anyone else >get their hands on Harry. In fact, grab Harry and get lost while he >(Dumbledore), figures this out. I think that canon makes it clear that Dumbledore _hasn't_ spoken to Hagrid between his rescuing Harry and the rendezvous at Privet Drive. I also think that there is actually very little time available between Voldemort's dispersal and all hell breaking loose for Harry to be rescued and spirited away. The battle between Voldemort and the Potters must have created a lot of noise, especially once the house fell down. The local Muggles, observing the collapse of a house that they'd never really noticed before, would have phoned for the police/fire brigade/ambulance. How fast would they have arrived? Depends how remote a village Godric's is, but they'd have been on their way post haste. In that small space of time, Hagrid has to arrive, rescue Harry, converse with Sirius, and fly off, not only before the Muggles start "swarming around" but also before the Ministry arrive to clean up - if he's seen, then not only will he be in trouble for using magic but there could also be all sorts of questions about Harry's custody. My own theory is that Dumbledore learns of the attack (though not of Peter's betrayal) _before_ the event, though not quite long enough before to prevent it. >Hagrid finds a place to hide (Hogwarts?) for a day while Dumbledore >checks into things, determines that Harry can be protected by his Probably does go to Hogwarts. Hagrid is the one who told McGonagall to meet Dumbledore at Privet Drive >Once it gets dark, he sends a message to Hagrid: Meet me at number >four, Privet Drive, Little Whinging, Surrey. Has to have been earlier than this, McGonagall is there quite early on and keeps an eye on the place all day. Why? Possibly in case the surviving DEs decide to thwart Dumbledore's plans by attacking the Dursleys? I suspect that DD and the rest of the Order (together with the Aurors) are been busy all day rounding up Voldemort's minions. >There are a couple of problems: How does Dumbledore, or anyone else >who was not there, know what happened? What clues McGonagall to go to >Little Whinging? One possible theory is that Hagrid wasn't alone. Someone else went with him and stayed there to give the story to the Ministry and the media when they arrived. They also reported back to Dumbledore. But Dumbledore and McGonagall haven't spoken before they meet that evening, Hagrid is the one who gave her the message. >But on the whole, I don't think the "missing 24" is an issue. No. Hogwarts is the safest place for Harry, just in case the DEs make another attempt. How did Hagrid come to be flying over Bristol? Maybe he got his route off Moody! hwyl Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 18:56:52 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 18:56:52 -0000 Subject: Snape, You're My Hero! Get Away From Me You Filthy... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140361 Betsy Hp: Lupinlore, I'd take you more seriously if you'd *use the books* instead of just stating opinion. That's why I snipped most of your response. It lacked any sort of substance. You disagree with me, fine. But I brought up canon, and you've not used any of it. I'd love to know what you find different between McGonagall's behavior and Snape's. You say Snape is a "textbook example", what textbook? And what does that textbook say? And from other posts: ...Actually, most of the "school bullies" are treated this way by JKR it seems. Harry is richer, more connected, more popular, and more athletic than Draco. Hermione is prettier and more popular than Pansy. The twins are much better thugs than Crabbe and Goyle. (When the twins do the equivalent of stuffing someone in a locker, their victim nearly dies. Crabbe and Goyle can't even handle Neville. The twins help their guy beat down the enemy all the time. I don't recall Harry ever being touched by Crabbe and Goyle, Draco takes Harry on alone.) Strikes me as a bit strange really. It's like JKR has turned the "schooldays" genre up side down. ...This is where I'm aware I'm kind of on my own, but honestly? I've yet to Snape behaving as a "deeply horrible person". He's certainly never struck me as sadistic (where do folks get that idea? I seriously wonder), and I've not really seen him abuse his powers. Oh sure, he plays the big bad to Harry, but frankly, Harry usually deserves it. And yeah, I think Snape *did* seriously worry that Harry may become evil himself. The temptations were certainly there, and Snape would be painfully aware of how far a silly little boy could go if he started to believe his press. vmonte responds: Well Betsy, I'm amazed at the back flips you need to do to make a case for Snape (and Draco). I would like to see you use book quotes "appropriately" to back up your ideas. Even you must realize that attacking students for what you and Snape believe they may become (new evil overlord) is not appropriate teacher behavior. That just because you and Snape think that it is a good idea to immediately put a student in their place (before you even know them) in case they get a big head about themselves, does not mean that you are thinking correctly. That just because you and Snape feel that Harry should be knocked down a few pegs on a consistent basis does not mean that either you or Snape are right. That just because you and Snape believe that Neville should be humiliated in class for what you believe to be his lack of skill, does not mean that you and Snape have the right idea. That just because you and Snape do not like know- it-alls does not mean that it is appropriate for people to sadistically derive pleasure from cruelty towards students like Hermione ("I see no difference" comment). And most importantly, that just because you disagree with JKR's comments regarding Snape does not mean that she is wrong, carelessly using words, or lying to fans on purpose. It may just mean that you are COMPLETELY wrong--JMO of course. Carol wrote a very good post regarding Snape the other day that I'm still thinking about. She used information found in the books to make a very interesting case for a loyal Snape. Unfortunately, it's reading comments like yours that make me even surer that the OFH Snape posters are on the right track. In your quest to make Snape a hero you have begun to attack the true hero of the books. Harry is not the bad guy. Anyone with any "sort of substance" can tell you this is a fact. If the only way you can prove your point about Snape's loyalty is by putting down Harry and company, then I can pretty much place bets right now that your ideas are dead wrong. Vivian From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sat Sep 17 19:15:16 2005 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 19:15:16 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape and more Snape! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140362 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > Elyse: > > > I would love to know his birthdate if anyone can provide it > > to me. I have a passing interest in Astrology and I am very > > disappointed that JKR doesnt use more of it in Divination classes. > > houyhnhnm: > > January 9, 1959 or 1960, as I'm sure someone else will have already > informed you. Snape shares his birth day with none other than the 37th President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon (born 1913). Stephen Ambrose, one of Nixon's biorgraphers, described Nixon as "heroic, admirable and inspiring while being simultaneously dishonorable, despicable, and a horrible example." Sounds like an excellent description of Snape as well! - CMC From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sat Sep 17 19:27:23 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 19:27:23 -0000 Subject: What mistakes Dumbledore made? Re: Loyalty & Trust In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140363 Finwitch: > Plain and simple, the *only* thing keeping Snape on the good side, was > Dumbledore's trust. Dumbledore was perfectly aware of this, > particularly when one or other questions this trust. That's why > Dumbledore kept saying "I trust Severus Snape" and refusing to listen > any bad word of him. Because he did not wish to lose this soul who hung > to goodness *only* on his trust. I think that choice was a sign of DD's > goodness and wisdom-- not a misjudgement -- no matter where Snape's > loyalties. > > If Snape wasn't worth that trust, the blame rests wholly on Snape's > shoulders, and not on Dumbledore's. > > Finwitch Hickengruendler: I might agree with you, if Snape not worthy of Dumbledore's trust couldn't have such disastrous results. If Dumbledore just trusted Snape, because he hoped his trust would hold Snape on the right side, than Dumbledore didn't just endanger his own life, with which he could do whatever he wants, but also the safety of everyone else living in Hogwarts, including Harry and Trelawney, both of whom Voldemort's targets, what Dumbledore knew, and he knew that Snape knew as well. Therefore it would make Dumbledore a trusting old fool, who put other lives in danger, because he trusted a tale, that not even a child would have believed. And the narrator agrees with me. He calls Dumbledore's trust in Snape "unforgivable" (in the last chapter), which it indeed would be, if the things were like they currently seem. Personally, I'm beginning to think that the LOLLIPOPs are right. I never believed in the Snape/Lily theory, but now I do. If Snape had a crush on Lily or at least liked her as a friend, it would make his story more believable and Dumbledore's trust much more acceptable (even if Snape turns out to be evil). From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Sat Sep 17 19:56:07 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 19:56:07 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape and more Snape! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140364 > > Elyse: > As for the anti social bit, I believe he is uncomfortable in > groups of people. I think this stems from a deep mistrust and > suspicion of their motives. > Of course this can be explained away by a possibly abusive > childhood, bullying by the Marauders, and lack of social skills. > But I very often wonder if he had a friend he believed in utterly, > one who may be dead or one who betrayed him for popularity. > The Slytherin gang doesnt cut it with me. I see them as the > peer pressure exerted to use the Dark Arts. > Gatta: I'm with you there (see #139187). I've often wondered how comfortable Snape was, being a Slytherin. We know he was sorted into Slytherin, so presumably spent seven years as a Slytherin student, and that at some point in his professorial career, he was made head of Slytherin house and probably (?) lives in close proximity to it and to the Slytherin students. That means that he's spent the better part of his life, boy and man, surrounded by snotty little Slytherin pure-bloods. And Snape is a half-blood. Of his personality, we know that he is withdrawn, aloof, gloomy, irritable, definitely not jolly--that in general, he exhibits many of the symptoms of chronic depression. We know that Draco is rude and talks down to him. I wonder where Snape's Slytherin buddies were when James and Sirius were hanging him upside-down. JKR doesn't say, but my guess is that they were standing there laughing as loud as anybody. > > Elyse: I would love to know his birthdate if anyone can provide it > to me. I have a passing interest in Astrology and I am very > disappointed that JKR doesnt use more of it in Divination classes. > Gatta: Per HPL, January 9, 1959 or 1960. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 19:54:04 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 19:54:04 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Longbottoms Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140365 The usual apologies if this idea has been presented before, I solemnly promise I never read it anywhere before. A few facts first (please someone correct me if I'm wrong on some of them): * Snape has been mistreating Neville ever since Neville arrived at Hogwarts. * Neville was one of the two Prophecy babies. * The Longbottoms were staunch enemies of LV, they had already thwarted him three times. * DD said that Snape was surprised and upset when LV decided that the Prophecy applied to Harry. * The Longbottoms were members of the Original Order of the Phoenix, and they were quite young then. So I theorise that there's a very simple way to connect all those facts: Snape hated the Longbottoms, considered them even more dangerous than the Potters, and fully expected LV to think that the Prophecy applied to their kid. And just like he has with Harry, he's reported the hate he had for the Longbottoms on their kid. Why Snape hated the Longbottoms is an open question, but there are many possibilities: - simply because they were Aurors - maybe he had fought them personally and been defeated by them, during one of their thwartings of LV - my favourite possibility: maybe the Longbottoms were just a few years older than Snape and the Marauders, and they were personal enemies of the Gang of Slytherins just like James was the personal enemy of Snape. Since Snape hanged with that Gang for a few years, he adopted their personal hate of the Longbottoms as his own. I also think that no matter how high profile the Potters were as enemies of LV, the Longbottoms were higher still. They were both purebloods, they were popular, I get the feeling that the Longbottom family is a reasonably wealthy and respected family (I wonder which family Alice was from?), and they were probably a bit older than the Potters which means that they had been fighting in the war for a bit longer (it does seem, after all, that Bella and Co assumed that the Longbottoms were "big enough" in the Order that they would know what had happened to LV, so it seems that they were no "junior officers"). So it would make sense to me that Snape, upon hearing the Prophecy, would immediately assume it referred to Neville and would never give a thought to half-blood Harry. What I like in this theory is that it is very simple and yet explains two pretty sticky points: - why Snape has been bullying Neville : because he's a Longbottom, and he even looks like his mother. It's simply a personal matter, just like it is with Harry. - why Snape was surprised when LV decided to go after the Potters: because he had been fully expecting him to go after the Longbottoms instead, he had never considered the possibility that LV would esteem the Potters' offspring to be a greater threat than the Longbottoms'. No canon proof, of course, so no point asking for it :-) Del From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Sep 17 21:47:11 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 21:47:11 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape and more Snape! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140366 > houyhnhnm: > > January 9, 1959 or 1960, as I'm sure someone else will have already > informed you. >snip< >> I mearly dabbled in astrology once upon a time. You may be able to > make more of it than I did. And find the wild card in the deck (Venus > in Aquarius?) Potioncat: I doubt it will really matter whether he was born in 59 or 60. If JKR had done a specific horoscope for the characters she would already be able to tell us the actual dates. Although she may have given them general traits for the sign they were born under. Of course, it not being important wouldn't stop us from trying to work it out. We also know that Lupin was born in March of 59 or 60. He has to be the same year as Snape or he would have been in a different class. Now to find out when the rest of that year group have birthdays, and we can play a logic game to figure it out....sort of. There was a thread not too long ago about Trelawney's predictions. She described Harry in one lesson and suggested he was born mid-winter. As it turns out Riddle was born on New Year's Eve (New Year's Day?). And the question was: was she actually "reading" LV? Along that line, what does it say that Snape and Riddle were born under the same sign? I was going to make a joke about Venus being in Aguarius, (I know almost nothing about the zodiac) but everything I came up with was...well, not suitable for this group...at least, not under my own pen name. From AllieS426 at aol.com Sat Sep 17 22:05:23 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 22:05:23 -0000 Subject: Voldie's Wand and other details In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140367 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lolita_ns" wrote: > Lolita: > > The problem, as I see it, is not in LV cracking the Fidelius (I'll > deal with it in a moment). No, the problem is the following: > > Just how did DUMBLEDORE know where to send Hagrid when the place was > hidden by Fidelius Charm? Pettigrew outed the Secret to LV, not to > him. > Allie: Maybe Dumbledore and other people knew the general location of where the Potters were going, i.e. Godric's Hollow but not the specific address. Dumbledore tells Hagrid, "Something terrible has happened to the Potters. Go to Gordric's Hollow and see if you can find them/save Harry/find the Death Eaters." The house has been destroyed - effectively, there is NO SECRET LEFT, since there is no house left. I think this is why baby Harry could be found. He could easily find the house in the village that had exploded (or imploded?). > (*Mind you, this is a whole new can of worms. 12 GP was protected by > Fidelius. Fair enough. But when Kreacher showed up at Narcissa's > door, how come that she didn't figure out that the HQ of the Order > must be at 12 GP? It doesn't matter that the house is unplottable, or > that it's fidelioused. Narcissa grew up there. She must have known > where Kreacher had come from. She also must have known that her once- > home passed to Sirius's hands - she knows that he's still alive. She > could have easily put 2 and 2 together. So what if the DEs couldn't > see the HQ? They could have planted a wizarding equivalent of a bomb > to the place they knew the house was, regardless of the fact that > they weren't able to see it. Allie: Narcissa didn't grow up there, she is Sirius's cousin, not his sister. Sirius says he hasn't seen her since he was younger than Harry's age (at the time 15). So IF she knew the address where Sirius grew up, I guess she could have planted a wizard bomb there, but she might not have known it. From msbeadsley at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 22:18:36 2005 From: msbeadsley at yahoo.com (msbeadsley) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 22:18:36 -0000 Subject: Voldie's Wand and other details In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140368 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lolita_ns" wrote: > Fair enough. But when Kreacher showed up at Narcissa's > door, how come that she didn't figure out that the HQ of the Order > must be at 12 GP? It doesn't matter that the house is unplottable, > or that it's fidelioused. Narcissa grew up there. She must have > known where Kreacher had come from. She also must have known that > her once- home passed to Sirius's hands - she knows that he's still > alive. Where is the canon that Narcissa lived at 12 GP or that it was "her once-home"? Unless I am being oblivious (always a possibility, I admit), the familiarity Narcissa would have with 12 GP would merely be that of a relative's house. Sirius and Regulus were brothers; Andromeda, Bellatrix and Narcissa were their *cousins*. > She could have easily put 2 and 2 together. So what if the > DEs couldn't see the HQ? They could have planted a wizarding > equivalent of a bomb to the place they knew the house was, > regardless of the fact that they weren't able to see it. Unless > Narcissa too had lost her marbles, like the rest of her family, > which doesn't ring quite true, seeing how she put the broken mother > act and tricked Snape - the untrusting soul extraordinaire - into > making the Vow.) It isn't at all clear, IMO, that they "could have planted a wizarding equivalent of a bomb to the place they knew the house was, regardless of the fact that they weren't able to see it." Not only could Harry not *see* 12 GP before reading DD's note, the space the structure inhabited a moment later did not apparently exist either, until, according to p. 59 of the US ed. of OoP, "It was as though an extra house had inflated, pushing those on either side out of its way." > However, the Fidelius in PoA is different. We hear, from Flitwick - > who, you will agree, knows his charms - that the Fidelius secret is > kept within a *living soul*. This would imply that while the Secret > Keeper is alive, the charm works. This means that NO ONE but LV and > Pettigrew, including DD, would have been able to find the house in > Godric's Hollow, for as long as Pettigrew was alive. Even after the > Potters and LV were dead, i.e, in LV's case, as dead as possible. > But, as we saw, no one had ANY problems whatsoever in finding the > place (DD knew where to send Hagrid, Hagrid found the place easily, > and the same goes for Sirius). Just what are we supposed to swallow > here? I am racking my brain for something that supports "as we saw, no one had ANY problems whatsoever finding the place." I don't think we see anything that happens before, during, or after at GH in canon. We can only infer, from what we're told, and it's awfully little, IMO. Sandy aka msbeadsley From msbeadsley at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 22:49:54 2005 From: msbeadsley at yahoo.com (msbeadsley) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 22:49:54 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Longbottoms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140369 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > So I theorise that there's a very simple way to connect all those > facts: Snape hated the Longbottoms, considered them even more > dangerous than the Potters, and fully expected LV to think that the > Prophecy applied to their kid. And just like he has with Harry, he's > reported the hate he had for the Longbottoms on their kid. > > Why Snape hated the Longbottoms is an open question, but there are > many possibilities: Actually, I like this, and I'd like to add another reason Snape might loathe Neville. He was *supposed* to be dead, easy, peasy, Japanesy. Just as Harry reminds Snape of James (and maybe Lily in a particularly excruciating way, assuming LOLLIPOPS or similar sweet), Neville reminds Snape of how very pear-shaped everything went at GH. One might even further surmise that Neville's haplessness further exacerbates Snape's teeth-gnashing over what happened; he's "the other boy who lived," and even less worth saving (in Snape's opinion) than Harry. On the other hand, looking at Neville may deepen his guilt; the kid is not in very good shape, but if things had gone according to Snape's assumptions, he'd be in a *tomb*. Interesting idea, Del! Sandy aka msbeadsley From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 22:55:03 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 15:55:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape, Your My Hero! "Get Away From Me You Filthy..." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050917225503.98292.qmail@web53114.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140370 --- vmonte wrote: > In your quest to make Snape a hero you have begun to attack the > true > hero of the books. Harry is not the bad guy. Anyone with any "sort > of > substance" can tell you this is a fact. If the only way you can > prove > your point about Snape's loyalty is by putting down Harry and > company, then I can pretty much place bets right now that your > ideas are dead wrong. I certainly don't think Betsy has "attacked" Harry (and even if she has, I'm not sure why that's a forbidden). I find Betsy's posts very thought-provoking even if I completely disagree with her about Draco. Nor do I see why putting forth ideas that are "dead wrong" is so bad either. Many of theories put forward over the years on this list have been "dead wrong" (vampire!Snape? H/H ship? Droobles bubble gum wrapper secret messages?). So what? We're speculating. Magda __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From littleleah at handbag.com Sat Sep 17 23:01:50 2005 From: littleleah at handbag.com (littleleahstill) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 23:01:50 -0000 Subject: JKR's idea of horcruxes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140371 Auria wrote: > where did JKR get the idea of horcruxes? I mean its a very > unusual concept - to split one's soul and 'keep' a piece in a > separate place to gain immortality - and I wonder if JKR had > gotten this idea from any other literature somewhere or if its > entirely unique? The idea occurs in Russian folklore (?'The Firebird?- I can't remember precisely), where the sorceror keeps his soul in an egg. It also appears in an Indian folktale called 'The Wizard Punchkin'. This makes me think it must occur in other Indo-European cultures at least. In these stories, the whole soul is removed, and the wizard still functions, so JKR's idea of a number of horcruxes, and the presumed need to retain at least one part of the soul seems to be original. Leah From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Sep 17 23:04:05 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 23:04:05 -0000 Subject: Soul health vs. psychological health (Face it, there is a reward for being ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140372 > Pippin: > I think we can say now that the wizards are not as vulnerable to > psychological injury as we are. If really dangerous > Dark Wizards only pop up once every hundred years or so, if serial > killers are so rare that Slughorn is shocked at the very notion, > if Draco, despite being raised by the Malfoys and schooled in > Slytherin, is still salvageable...then they're just way tougher > than you'd think. > > Even though they hurt just as much as we do, even though when > you prick them they bleed, it takes a helluvalot more to damage > a wizard than one of us -- we saw that in Umbridge's office, we > saw it again in a different way in HBP. Jen: I was wondering after OOTP how the WW could be so dismissive of emotional injury. Then we got more on the concept of the soul, and how important the soul is to this particular story, and some of my problems resolved. HBP convinced me the health of the soul is a much more important concern in the WW than either physical or mental health, at least with the group of characters we're meeting. Since the heart of the story is about a person who purposely injured his soul vs. one with an untarnished soul, the focus really does make more sense to me now. The soul seems to be much more vulnerable in the WW, and much more open to injury from the powers of dark magic. The banter between Dumbledore and LV made this idea clear--there's love magic and dark magic, and a huge part of being a magical person is choosing which road to go down. One keeps your soul healthy and strong, and the other is degrading and injurious. >From Harry's example we find out a magical person don't have to be perfectly well behaved to have an untarnished soul! His soul health is due to never following the road to dark magic, even though he's been a victim of some serious threats on his soul, like the curse that failed and his link to LV's thoughts and feelings. Jen From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 23:07:57 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 23:07:57 -0000 Subject: The handwriting in the book (Was: Lily and Snape) In-Reply-To: <432BBCEB.3000703@chalmers.se> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140373 Fabian wrote: > JKR has said that she inserts information into the story by using Hermione and Dumbledore. Hermione continously thinks it's a girl who has written the extra notes in the book, at least until she finds out its Snape book. So, it might just be that it was Lily's handwriting and not Snape's. Carol responds: First, it's highly unlikely that Lily (or Snape's mother, suggested by other posters) would invent the curses that Snape claims as his own, particularly Sectumsempra and its accompanying note, "for enemies," and the curses are in the same handwriting as the potions hints. Both appear to be the product of the same ingenious mind, young Snape's: "The more Harry pored over the book, the more he realized how much was there, not only the handy hints and shortcuts on potions that were earning him such a glowing reputation with Slughorn, but also the imaginative little jinxes and hexes scribbled in the margins, which Harry was sure, judging by the crossings-out and revisions, that the Prince had invented himself" (HBP Am. ed. 238). Also, JKR has prepared us for this incident by describing young Snape's handwriting in the Pensieve scene in OoP (which BTW also provides our first clue since the duel with Lockhart in CoS that SS is really knowledgeable about DADA): "His [young Severus's] hand was flying across the parchment; he had written at least a foot more than his closest neighbors, and yet his writing was minuscule and cramped" (OoP Am. ed. 641). Compare the description of the handwriting in the HBP's Potions text: "Harry. . . saw something scribbled along the back cover in the same small, cramped handwriting as the instructions that had won him his bottle of Felix Felicis . . . : 'This Book is the Property of the Half-Blood Prince'" (HBP Am. ed. 193). I don't know about anyone else, but when I read that sentence I remembered the description of Severus's writing from OoP and I immediately knew who the HBP was. Snape's reactions to both Harry's Potions performance and his use of Sectumsempra also make it clear, IMO, that all the notations are his. They are certainly all in the same handwriting: "[T]here was barely a page on which the Prince had not made additional notes, not all of them concerned with potion-making" (HBP 194-5). Hermione's assumption (same page) that the writing is a girl's is almost certainly a red herring, as is the age of the book. Her error does lead us to Eileen Prince, however, and to the interesting discovery that Snape is a half-blood, hence the nickname written in that same tiny handwriting. In any case, the lovely irony that "the Half-Blood Prince had proved a much more effective teacher than Snape so far" (HBP 239) would be completely lost if the annotations on both potion-makimg and spells were not Snape's own. There's no doubt in my mind that Snape (as man and boy) is both a Potions and a DADA genius (clearly established, IMO, by the Wolfbane Potion and Veritaserum on the one hand and his invented hexes and curses on the other). The question for me is whether Slughorn is right about *Lily* being very good at Potions. Is he misattributing *her* success at Potions to innate skill or talent just as he's misattributing Harry's success (based wholly on the HBP's notes) to Lily's genetic inheritance? Is Slughorn just trying to butter up Harry by flattering his mother? Slughorn's "I don't think even you, Severus--" (HBP 319) suggests that Harry is doing as well in Potions as he remembers *Severus* doing twenty-one years earlier (a sad irony from Snape's perspective since Harry is using *his* discoveries to earn those marks), but he doesn't say, "I don't think even your mother, Harry--" It's possible that Slughorn gave her high marks because he liked her (as he clearly did). Or maybe Slughorn was lucky enough to have two Potions geniuses in one class. We just don't know. In essence, we *know* that young Snape was a Potions (and DADA) genius, but we really don't know whether Lily was. Maybe it's just fond memories of her green eyes and her "cheek" that Slughorn remembers. At any rate, the only evidence we have of Lily's skill at Potions is Slughorn's word. Snape's skill, in contrast, is evident in every book in the series, and the handwriting is clearly Severus's and not Lily's (or Eileen's). The hand that wrote "Sectumsempra (for enemies)" (can't find page number) is the same hand that wrote "Crush with flat side of silver dagger" (HBP 189). I know there are posters who think that a shared skill in Potions formed the basis for a friendship between Severus and Lily, but that seems to me like pure speculation based on wishful thinking. Carol, fearing that we've seen the last of Snape's potion-making as well as his teaching From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 23:17:05 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 23:17:05 -0000 Subject: Voldie's Wand and other details In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140374 >Lolita wrote: >(*Mind you, this is a whole new can of worms. 12 GP was protected by >Fidelius. Fair enough. But when Kreacher showed up at Narcissa's >door, how come that she didn't figure out that the HQ of the Order >must be at 12 GP? Saraquel: I think that the magic of the Fidelious charm is to make something inaccessible in the present. This is a bit difficult to explain ? but it's a bit like forgetting a word (something that happens to me increasingly often ? ahhh, old age creeping up.) You know that the word exists, you know the meaning of the word, but for the life of you, you can't access the word itself. So even if Narcissa put 2+2 together about knowing Kreacher, she would still not have been able to actually think, 12 Grimauld Place. Neither would she be able to actually pinpoint where the house was. It would remain tantalisingly and frustratingly, out of reach. If you are in on the secret, as the Members of the Order are with 12 GP, then the problem is not being able to think of the secret, but you face an inability to communicate it. >Allie wrote: >The house has been destroyed - effectively, there is NO SECRET >LEFT, since there is no house left. I think this is why baby Harry >could be found. Saraquel: Yes Allie that was my thought too. The Fidelius charm, in this case was used to hide 2 people in a house. It's a question of what is charmed, the house or the Potters? I'm inclined to think that it was the house. Pettigrew charmed the house, using the Fidelius, hence, as the caster, he still had access to its whereabouts. Once the house is destroyed, the charm is broken and just like magic, anyone who ever knew where GH was can remember/find it again. I have no doubt that DD was the one who suggested in the first place, that the Potter's hide at GH. However, having said that, there must also be some sort of bond in the mix between the Potters and Pettigrew, as the secret that he has to keep does not belong to the house, but to them. Once they are dead, I presume that bond dissolves as well. >Lolita wrote: >I think that Snape contacted DD the moment his dark mark >disappeared, he must have figured out that something had happened >to LV. Saraquel: Nice one Lolita, I really liked this as an explanation. Although DD (and anyone else who knew where GH was before the Fidelius Charm was put on it) would be able to remember or talk about where GH was the minute it blew up, and this would immediately alert them to something being wrong. It really depends on your Snape allegiances as to whether you put him in the mix. Perhaps it was a combination of Snape telling DD of about his dark mark disappearing and DD then immediately being able to talk about GH that alerted them to the problem. If you start to try and work out the implications of this magic, it is really mind boggling. Is the charm really a memory charm which reaches out to everyone who knows about the secret you are hiding, and confounds their memory of it: or is it more like Plato's Forms, where in order to think about anything that exists you access a sort of perfect form of it that is out there in the ether, and the magic simply hides this form from you? Perhaps it's not wise to go too far down that road . Saraquel From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Sep 17 21:50:18 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:50:18 -0400 Subject: Snape, Snape and more Snape! References: Message-ID: <017601c5bbd1$cd165900$1f9e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 140375 >Gatta: > Of his personality, we know that he is withdrawn, aloof, gloomy, > irritable, definitely not jolly--that in general, he exhibits many of > the symptoms of chronic depression. Magpie: Does he really exhibit symptoms of chronic depression? The only one of these things that reminds me Snape is that he's irritable, and even then he seems to be irritated by specific things and feels better when he can take it out on someone else. Gatta: > We know that Draco is rude and talks down to him. Magpie: No he's not. Harry's surprised to hear Draco speak to Snape angrily in HBP because usually he speaks to him respectfully. Draco calls Snape "sir" and says he'd be a great headmaster. Snape's his favorite teacher and he laughs at his jokes in class. I got the impression he respected him as a DE as well. Gatta: > I wonder where Snape's Slytherin buddies were when James and Sirius > were hanging him upside-down. JKR doesn't say, but my guess is that > they were standing there laughing as loud as anybody. Magpie: I wouldn't want to assume that since we're told Snape is alone. In the past it's seemed like Slytherin protects their own from outsiders whatever goes on inside the house--it's hard for me to imagine them laughing along with Gryffindors as they mock a Slytherin, which makes their house look bad. It's true that Pureblood mania seems to rule in Slytherin, but they haven't had much to say about half-bloods that we've seen--Snape is currently the head of the house and the kids all cheer when he's made DADA teacher. Lucius apparently has good things to say about him. I've always gotten the impression that Snape liked Slytherin, was proud of the house and identified himself as a true member of it. He may be more loyal to Slytherin (where he found his "true friends") than Hogwarts. Magpie. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 23:40:31 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 23:40:31 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Longbottoms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140376 Del: > What I like in this theory is that it is very simple and yet explains > two pretty sticky points: > > - why Snape has been bullying Neville : because he's a Longbottom, and > he even looks like his mother. It's simply a personal matter, just > like it is with Harry. > > - why Snape was surprised when LV decided to go after the Potters: > because he had been fully expecting him to go after the Longbottoms > instead, he had never considered the possibility that LV would esteem > the Potters' offspring to be a greater threat than the Longbottoms'. Alla: I really like your idea, Del. Just one clarification question. I just want to make sure - you are arguing that when Snape reported Prophecy to Voldemort, he had specific target in mind - Longbottoms, he was not in your theory just reporting the prophecy thinking that it applies to some unnnamed couple. Basically, he knew exactly what he was doing - sending Longbottoms to death, correct? Interesting. Does not make him less complicit in Potters death, IMO, but makes him so much MORE guilty overall. I can live with that. :-) Alla. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sat Sep 17 23:44:11 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 23:44:11 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Longbottoms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140377 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > So I theorise that there's a very simple way to connect all those > facts: Snape hated the Longbottoms, considered them even more > dangerous than the Potters, and fully expected LV to think that the > Prophecy applied to their kid. And just like he has with Harry, he's > reported the hate he had for the Longbottoms on their kid. Hickengruendler: All of this is of course very well plausible. But I want to propose another theory for Snape's treatment of Neville. That theory is not mine, I readed it on this list pre-HBP and find it very convincing (and sorry, I have forgotten by whom it was.) Like I said, it was pre- HBP, and part of the theory is now Canon, namely that Snape was the spy, who overheard the beginning of the prophecy. The theory is: Snape, who does not know the full prophecy and that Voldemort has marked his enemy, still considers Neville as a possible candidate for Voldemort's vanquisher. That gives him three possible reasons for his awful behaviour, depending what you think on which site Snape is: 1.) He's loyal to Voldemort and wants to undermine Neville's self- confidence, so that Neville won't be a threat for the dark Lord. 2.) He wants Voldemort defeated, either because he is loyal to Dumbledore or because he has his personal reasons, and is frustrated that one of the two prophecy boys is so seemingly inept. 3.) And that's my favourite. He wants Voldemort defeated, but he does not want James Potter's son to get all the glory. He therefore is frustrated, that the other possible prophecy boy is seemingly inept and therefore Harry the only hope for the Wizarding World. Hickengruendler From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Sep 17 16:21:06 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:21:06 -0400 Subject: Lily and Snape References: <20050917120812.96605.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <008e01c5bba3$cf5cdc80$1f9e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 140378 laurie: > But if it was > Lilly that was the whiz at potions when they were in > school dosen't account for the fact that it seems like > Snape is so gifted at it later on--unless he learned > to love it because of Lilly.... Also, that would mean Lily came up with Sectumsempra, and the other curses Snape claims are his own to Harry. Personally, if there was any secret helping going on, I'd find it much funnier if it was Lily getting help from Snape. After all, Slughorn thinks Harry is a Potions genius too when he totally is not. Maybe he really did inherit his mother's talent when he inherited teen!Snape's help. -m From rytal at yahoo.co.uk Sun Sep 18 01:13:48 2005 From: rytal at yahoo.co.uk (Auria) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 01:13:48 -0000 Subject: The handwriting in the book (Was: Lily and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140379 > Carol responds: > First, it's highly unlikely that Lily (or Snape's mother, suggested by > other posters) would invent the curses that Snape claims as his own, > particularly Sectumsempra and its accompanying note, "for enemies," > and the curses are in the same handwriting as the potions hints. Both > appear to be the product of the same ingenious mind, young Snape's: > Auria says: You are making a huge assumption that everything that Snape wrote in his textbook is coming from one source. No-one here seems to have considered the fact that MAYBE Snape picked up tips from several other students, perhaps other books too, as well as making some spells of his own. Just because Snape is now a very accomplished Potions and DADA teacher doesn't preclude Lily from also being good at potions. Why should one exclude the other? Snape may well have become such a good potions master from some of the information copied from Lily that he then added to from his own intellect. Rarely does someone learn from only one source. Auria From rytal at yahoo.co.uk Sun Sep 18 01:21:16 2005 From: rytal at yahoo.co.uk (Auria) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 01:21:16 -0000 Subject: Lily and Snape In-Reply-To: <008e01c5bba3$cf5cdc80$1f9e400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140380 > Also, that would mean Lily came up with Sectumsempra, and the other curses > Snape claims are his own to Harry. > > Personally, if there was any secret helping going on, I'd find it much > funnier if it was Lily getting help from Snape. After all, Slughorn thinks > Harry is a Potions genius too when he totally is not. Maybe he really did > inherit his mother's talent when he inherited teen!Snape's help. > > -m Auria writes: As I wrote in an earlier message, why does everyone assume that Snape only took notes from one source, or that he made them ALL himself? It could be a mixture of both! Its possible that Lily was also good at potions, that Snape not only made notes using his own intellect but also wrote down tips taken from other students? Or perhaps they even worked together at times, swopping ideas? Snape perhaps later became more involved in the dark arts and started meddling with stuff like Sectum Sempra. This doesn't detract from the fact that Lily was good at potions. I dont buy the argument that Slughorn was just saying that to butter Harry up. Whether Snape was also good at the time of being a student, or whether he gradually learnt and then found his own genius later on is what we should be debating. Auria From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 18 01:23:50 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 01:23:50 -0000 Subject: Voldie's Wand and other details In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140381 Allie wrote: > Narcissa didn't grow up there, she is Sirius's cousin, not his > sister. Sirius says he hasn't seen her since he was younger than > Harry's age (at the time 15). So IF she knew the address where > Sirius grew up, I guess she could have planted a wizard bomb there, > but she might not have known it. Carol responds: You're right that Narcissa didn't grow up at 12 Grmimauld Place and that she's Sirius's cousin, not his sister, but it's Bellatrix, the older sister, whom Sirius hasn't seen since he was about 15 (or between his fourth and fifth years, as Harry is at the time of the conversation). Her seventh year apparently coincides with Sirius's fourth year, making her about three years older than he is. Since there's another sister, Andromeda, in between Bellatrix and Narcissa, Narcissa is at most one year older than Sirius and possibly in the same year as MWPP and Snape, in which case he would have seen her at school for two or three more years. He wouldn't have seen Narcissa at 12 GP after he ran away at sixteen, but his absence (and her own graduation and marriage) wouldn't preclude her from visiting Aunt and Uncle Black (first names unknown) or cousin Reggie, the budding Death Eater. Kreacher's beloved Bellatrix, by that time probably married to Rodolphus Lestrange, need not have stopped visiting them, either. Bellatrix's visits would of necessity have stopped when she was sent to Azkaban, but Narcissa could theoretically have continued to visit until both her aunt and uncle were dead. Mrs. Black died about two years before Sirius's escape, IIRC, and 12 GP was made into Order Headquarters about to years after that (end of GoF). I'm guessing that both sisters at one time know their uncle's address but the Fidelius Charm somehow caused them to forget it. Otherwise, both sisters would know the address (as would their respective husbands) and the Order would not be safe. Note that Bellatrix tries to get the Order's address from Snape in "Spinner's End" and he tells her (snidely) that, not being the Secret Keeper, he can't give it to her. (IMO, he's using that very true statement as an excuse for concealing information he wouldn't give to her if he could.) If Bellatrix doesn't know the address of the Order's Headquarters, Narcissa probably doesn't know it, either, even though she must know it's her aunt and uncle's old house. Carol, who wishes the whole Fidelius Charm idea didn't have so many holes in it From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Sep 18 01:54:25 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 01:54:25 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Longbottoms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140382 Del wrote: > > > > > So I theorise that there's a very simple way to connect all those > > facts: Snape hated the Longbottoms, considered them even more > > dangerous than the Potters, and fully expected LV to think that > > the Prophecy applied to their kid. And just like he has with > > Harry, he's reported the hate he had for the Longbottoms on their > > kid. > Hickengruendler: > > All of this is of course very well plausible. But I want to propose > another theory > The theory is: > Snape, who does not know the full prophecy and that Voldemort has > marked his enemy, still considers Neville as a possible candidate > for Voldemort's vanquisher. > > That gives him three possible reasons for his awful behaviour, > depending what you think on which site Snape is: > > 1.) He's loyal to Voldemort and wants to undermine Neville's self- > confidence, so that Neville won't be a threat for the dark Lord. > 2.) He wants Voldemort defeated, either because he is loyal to > Dumbledore or because he has his personal reasons, and is frustrated > that one of the two prophecy boys is so seemingly inept. > 3.) And that's my favourite. He wants Voldemort defeated, but he > does not want James Potter's son to get all the glory. He therefore > is frustrated, that the other possible prophecy boy is seemingly > inept and therefore Harry the only hope for the Wizarding World. > > Hickengruendler Valky: I know Hickengruendler, you specified that your three theories are pre HBP, and IMO that is the place where those three and Del's theory fall down in the middle. Does any of these theories give a plausible explantion as to why Neville was not a target of bullying in Snapes HBP DADA class? In HBP Harry was Snape's sole target, in all the canon we have. In fact we even have a specific case of Snape ignoring Neville, in the silent magic class. Though Harry sees it in his typically coloured light as an instance of Snape ignoring Hermione's cleverness. IMHO, the above theories don't give or even hold promise of an explanantion as to why Snape's vendetta with the other prophecy boy just went away *pop* like that. Just IMO. Valky From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Sep 18 01:52:32 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 21:52:32 -0400 Subject: Lily and Snape References: Message-ID: <029001c5bbf3$a2f6d6a0$1f9e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 140383 Auria writes: >> As I wrote in an earlier message, why does everyone assume that Snape only took notes from one source, or that he made them ALL himself? It could be a mixture of both! It's possible that Lily was also good at potions, that Snape not only made notes using his own intellect but also wrote down tips taken from other students? Or perhaps they even worked together at times, swapping ideas? << Magpie: It's certainly possible (which is why I said *if* it was one person helping the other--there's no proof anyone was helping Anyone at all), but so far there's no reason to assume anything beyond what we have in canon, which is that Harry got Snape's old textbook and Snape had made lots of his own notes in them, some of which reflected his dark nature. We don't know where Snape got his inspiration for his ideas, but so far I don't see any reason to start looking for or inventing anyone else for the storyline. Perhaps the book was where Snape wrote everything he and his future-DE gang came up with together, but the only person canon has so far linked with the notes in the textbook is Snape. Auria: >> Snape perhaps later became more involved in the dark arts and started meddling with stuff like Sectum Sempra. This doesn't detract from the fact that Lily was good at potions. I don't buy the argument that Slughorn was just saying that to butter Harry up. << Magpie: Lily could certainly be good at Potions. My own suggestion (that maybe Lily was like Harry in that Slughorn thought Lily was better at Potions than she was) came into my head only because we're hearing about Lily's great gift at Potions the same time we're hearing about Harry's gift for it. But I've got no real reason at this point to believe that Lily couldn't be just as good at Potions as Slughorn says she was. (And I do take Sirius' word that Snape showed up at school already interested in the Dark Arts.) Auria: >> Whether Snape was also good at the time of being a student, or whether he gradually learnt and then found his own genius later on is what we should be debating. << Magpie: May I ask why, though? I mean, why should we be debating whether or not Snape was good at the time of being a student when the storyline in HBP from what I can see was that Snape's student's textbook contained notes in his handwriting that suggested he had a special talent at that age? It just seems like that was an answer given at the end of HBP (the Half Blood Prince was Snape) and there's no real reason to look for the "real" HBP (meaning the person who was really the brains behind the notes) beyond Snape. Not that I think the conversation is pointless at all. With all the emphasis put on Lily being good at Potions it does seem like it's going to go *somewhere*, and a friendship or partnership between Lily and Snape makes sense. It just doesn't seem like there's any reason for Book VII to revisit the Half Blood Prince Mystery to show that Snape wasn't really the guy Harry thought he knew from the book, that Harry was really learning from a group of people mostly his mother. It just seems to destroy one of the main storylines of HBP, which was that of Harry and Snape working together through the book. I do think we're going to learn something about a relationship between Lily and Snape. It just seems like the Half-Blood Prince storyline is over. -m From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Sep 18 02:51:39 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 02:51:39 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Longbottoms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140384 Del wrote: > What I like in this theory is that it is very simple and yet explains > two pretty sticky points: > > - why Snape has been bullying Neville : because he's a Longbottom, and > he even looks like his mother. It's simply a personal matter, just > like it is with Harry. > > - why Snape was surprised when LV decided to go after the Potters: > because he had been fully expecting him to go after the Longbottoms > instead, he had never considered the possibility that LV would esteem > the Potters' offspring to be a greater threat than the Longbottoms'. Potioncat: I generally avoid prophesy theories, so I'm probably saying something stupid here. But HBP has made the whole thing more interesting, not so much what the darn thing means, but rather, how it all got started. I'm going to repeat one idea of mine that the book itself may contradict: the first part of the prophesy does not say the one who will defeat the Dark Lord hasn't yet been born. It says the one is approaching, born as the 7th month dies. Maybe I'm not taking it the right way, but to me, it could be anyone who had a late July birthday. It's not until the end that it says will be born. If I'm right, LV and the gang wouldn't be looking for a boy soon to be born. At any rate, at the time Snape heard the prophecy, would he even know Lily or Alice were pregnant? He wouldn't know until much later, if I'm correct, who the candidates were. While I'm sure DEs were keeping an eye on Order members, I doubt if they would know about pregnancies before they became obvious. Snape would have given LV the information long before he had any idea of who the child might be. Also, it wouldn't be a given that the parents were Order members. I agree, once the boys were born and the candidates narrowed down, Snape might have hoped it was Longbottom rather than Potter. On the other hand, Alice could be a "Prince" and as an uncle, sort of, Snape is trying to force more magic out of Neville...just like the other relatives did. Potioncat (who really doesn't believe that last part because Hermione had to search really hard for someone named Prince at Hogwarts. It looks like Eileen was the last one.) From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Sep 18 02:53:05 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 02:53:05 -0000 Subject: The handwriting in the book (Was: Lily and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140385 > > Carol responds: > > First, it's highly unlikely that Lily (or Snape's mother, > > suggested by other posters) would invent the curses that Snape > > claims as his own, particularly Sectumsempra and its accompanying > > note, "for enemies,"and the curses are in the same handwriting as > > the potions hints. Bothappear to be the product of the same > > ingenious mind, young Snape's: > Auria says: > Just because Snape is now a very accomplished Potions and DADA > teacher doesn't preclude Lily from also being good at potions. Why > should one exclude the other? Snape may well have become such a > good potions master from some of the information copied from Lily > that he then added to from his own intellect. Rarely does someone > learn from only one source. > Auria Valky: I have to agree with Auria here, though it is rare thing for me to feel less than convinced after Carol gives one of her excellent arguments :D I have been following this thread with quite some interest, I think that this notion of Lily's invovement in Snapes past has merit. My thoughts on it are this. Snape's chiefest interest, his pet subject, is not potions, it's DADA. Snape however has a considerable reputation for potions genius. In HBP we discover his secret in Potions is deviating from convention, subtle, simple and even aesthetic changes are made to the potions to improve their quality. Now I don't know about you, but the words subtle and aesthetic? fitting words to describe the notations in Snapes book, but Snape? Goodness! Snape know aesthetics? even if it was staring hard into his greasy face, the answer is NO no no! It's not his area to add a sprig of peppermint to improve a euphoria potion, is it? Surely not. Why would Snape even *care* about "Euphoria" potion of all things? Let alone whether it smelled nice or if the dunderhead who bothered to take it tweaked his nose and burst into foolish song all over the place. Harry gets himself a reputation for potions genius too. But are we being too hard on him to say he deserved it less than Snape. In canon we can only absolutely ascertain that the origin of the Dark Arts and DADA type spells is Snape, and hey that makes outright utter sense doesn't it? Sadistic horrible Snape figures out new and interesting ways to torment and humiliate or otherwise destroy a mutating everchanging enemy. We can credit him with Levicorpus, and Sectumsempra absolutely, we could also crown him with muffliato etc.. it's all *good* spy/DADA/warrior type stuff. In character even. But the berry squashing aesthetically subtle beauty of his less favoured subject, especially when its obvious any above average wizard can brew spectacular potions by following the intructions (if he can read them :D) it doesn't bear out Snape really. These things are indeed, above all, the marks of someone with aesthetic class, someone subtley bewitchingly beautiful, someone who is most interested in giving to others, a very popular and special young lady, it fits. Just IMO. Valky From editor at texas.net Sun Sep 18 04:03:22 2005 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 23:03:22 -0500 Subject: Amandageist's 5th Anniversary Repost!--List history, Snape, etc. Message-ID: <004301c5bc05$ea763180$0e58aacf@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 140386 I only missed the date by a day this year! This is kind of long, but has some list history value. And Snapeness. Every year on the anniversary of when I joined the group, I repost my first post, in solidarity with new members who hesitate to float their ideas or address the group because it might be stupid, might have been discussed before, etc. We've all been there. Also because, in light of what goes through my inbox now, I can't believe there was ever a need to ask the question I asked then. This is my fifth anniversary post. Last year, I did a recap of them, which I will retain. Enjoy. On my first anniversary, 9-16-01, #26162, I said: > I joined a list of about 180 members (I think I worked out that I was 182), > whose members contained (on a quick scan) such luminaries as Penny, Simon, > Jim Ferer, Carole, Jen Piersol, Joy, Ebony, Trina, our beloved Brit car, > Catlady, Steve the Lexicon god, Aberforth's Goat, Mlleelizabeth, Peg Kerr, > Kelley, Sheryll, the McGee, Pippin, storm, and Cassie. The spinoff group > Snapefans would come along on January 1, and Chatter on February 2. > {note: Snapefans doesn't even remember where it came from anymore; it was the first spinoff, and the naming convention "HFPGU" had not evolved, and so their history was lost as their list owners changed. Chatter came along because a spirited discussion of British food was clogging up the list. We were so *big,* after all! Several *hundred* members! My second anniversary post, #44198, was late (9-18-02). TBAY had been born. And I attempted humor: > *Amanda clears her throat pretentiously. There is a flurry of motion as > various listmembers recognize the sound--heads bob up, looks of alarm cross > faces, and there is a general wave of surreptitious sidling toward the > nearest exit. Amy Z and Neil cause a bit of a distraction when both try to > get out one door and they become wedged; Cindy pries them out with her > paddle and all escape. Penny pretends she hears Elizabeth crying and beats a > more dignified retreat. The older TBAYers quietly ease out the door and into > the water on inner tubes. Caius puts on his new Inviso-Phones, starts his > filks playing, and sits up alertly. The room fills with loud cracks as the > list elves remember various tasks needing urgent attention and disappear. > The newer listmembers look around, uneasy, and head for the doors > themselves, but by this point Amanda has casually waved her wand and they > have swung shut. A few remaining Geists hover by the doors and brandish > balloons at the crowd, which backs up nervously and turns back to Amanda. > She smiles benevolently at her alarmed captive audience and begins > speaking.* > > I actually am two days late, but it gives the interval a nice ring: Two > years and two days ago, I posted my first message to this list. Following my > tradition, I now re-post it in its entirety. For those of you who consider > me a Towering List Presence (sort of like that violet pudding) and an > Authority On Stuff, enjoy this window back to my pre-L.O.O.N. days. For > those of you who think I'm an idiot and post drivel, enjoy this > confirmation. For those of you who have no idea who I am, anyway, and wonder > why the hell I'm cluttering up the list, too bad--the doors are locked and > you're stuck. toward a group of people in the back whose attention has wandered and are > whispering something about Draco> > ..... > > So that you may honor them, these are some of the members there to meet me, > whose names also now ring through these hallowed halls (or would, if I'd > open the doors).....Penny; Simon; Jim Ferer; Jen P; Joywitch; Ebony; Flying > Ford Anglia, Catlady; Lexicon Steve; Aberforth's Goat; KelleyElf; Sheryll; > and golden faile leap out at me from a quick scan of the list. Two years and > more these guys have been listening to me! So you can all just stop > complaining. And put your hands down! You can't *all* need to go to the > bathroom that bad. > > *Amanda retires with dignity and feigned deafness, ignoring the cheers and > sounds of running feet as she allows the doors to open.* My third, #80977, was on time: 9-16-03: > It's that time again! > > (steps back to allow the marching band through, brushes confetti out of > hair) > > Yes....it's time for Amanda's Anniversary Re-Post!!! > > Control yourselves. > > In the dim, dark, far-off days, when my children still napped and I was > spending money and not earning it, I bought a book on sale, that I had > avoided because it was popular. But 30% off, hey. You know the rest. > And my fourth anniversary post, #115,148, several days late! on 10-7-04: > (Amandageist wafts in, distressed. She attempts to wring her hands, can't > because she's a vapor, gives it up as a bad job.) I can't believe I *missed* > the date! > > Well, clearly I couldn't think of anything to say, which is why I lifted > from the first three. This is no real surprise; I have so little time > anymore, for in the four intervening years I have gone from a stay-at-home > mom, to a part-time job, to a full-fledged full-time career. But I still try > to make time for my first HP love--talking about Snape. As evidenced below, > in my Very First Post, #1583, September 17, 2000. > {note: It was not until #1642, on the 18th, that I got around to theorizing that Snape may have loved Lily. Before there was a Bay or a LOLLIPOPS, I was out there in my inner tube...} > From: Amanda Lewanski > Date: Sat Sep 16, 2000 9:52 pm > Subject: Hello, and a question > > Greeting to the list. I'm new, and I've been group-hopping trying to find > the level of discussion I'd like, and you seem to be it. I hope I can > contribute items of interest, too. > > A question---in all the groups I've observed, nobody's talking about Snape. > Can I get your thoughts on him? He seems to be such a complex > character---any theories (I've got a few) on *why* he stays with the good > guys? Why Dumbledore trusts him? > > Just wondering if you were pondering what I was pondering, > > Amanda From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Sep 18 04:14:35 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 04:14:35 -0000 Subject: Varioius replies - Snape, Secret Keeper bait and switch. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140387 Elyse: > The Slytherin gang doesnt cut it with me. I see them as the > peer pressure exerted to use the Dark Arts. Valky: I don't know how that conclusion can be drawn, to be honest. We have it on a decent enough authority that Snape came to Hogwarts already deeply interested in Dark Arts. And after HBP, we have gotten all the confirmation we need about it haven't we? Snape speaks of Dark Arts in loving tone, he invents curses of a highly insidious nature. His Dark Arts interest is of his own volition, the impetus is *in Snape himself*. With so much evidence against it, peer pressure doesn't cut it for me. Lolita: Just how did DUMBLEDORE know where to send Hagrid when the place was hidden by Fidelius Charm? Pettigrew outed the Secret to LV, not to him. Valky: I read this very differently to most people. I think Hagrid was given the secret, letterform, probably by Sirius shortly after the change in Secret Keeper. Dumbledore, possibly wasn't. Sirius and Hagrid must have been given the secret. It's that simple, they turned up at Godrics Hollow while Harry was still under SK protection it seems, hence the SK did not work against them. Just because Sirius wasn't the Secret Keeper, doesn't preclude him from knowing the secret. He just couldn't share it with anyone. Same with Hagrid and whoever else among the order who were likely sent messages from the Potters after they changed SK to Peter. Recall that this was a severely cloak and Dagger affair, Sirius' plan was always intended to *hide* the indentity of the real secret keeper, and bait Voldmeort to chase him to the ends of the earth where he would gladly die with nothing to give. That was the brilliant plan, it really was quite ingenious, and I doubt very much the James, Lily and Sirius botched it. They probably concocted a way to have Sirius be percieved as delivering the secret to the known trusted, but it would be Peters handwriting that these people would actually get the secret from. It was a bait and switch, so everyone was supposed to believe Sirius was the Secret Keeper. This is also why I believe Dumbledore was never shown Peters note, Dumbledore is too clever, he would quickly figure out that Sirius wasn't the real secret keeper, questions in *anyone's* mind that Sirius was not the Secret Keeper *had* to be avoided at all cost (even losing Dumbledore) so DD never got in on the secret. OTOH Hagrid's mind is less difficut to fool, I know it seems a bit callous, but Hagrid could therefore serve the express purpose of being a vessel for the lie. People see Sirius and Hagrid together, and they know that Hagrid is a trusted friend, a quick glance in his eyes would tell a passing legilimens who Hagrid believed the Secret Keeper to be. Which would unquestionably in Hagrid's mind be Sirius Black. So finally, how dd Dumbledore know where to send Hagrid? He didn't. Hagrid knew where Harry was, and that was enough information for everybody. Problem solved IMO. Valky From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 18 04:27:01 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 04:27:01 -0000 Subject: The handwriting in the book (Was: Lily and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140388 Carol earlier: > > First, it's highly unlikely that Lily (or Snape's mother, suggested by other posters) would invent the curses that Snape claims as his own, particularly Sectumsempra and its accompanying note, "for enemies," and the curses are in the same handwriting as the potions hints. Both appear to be the product of the same ingenious mind, young Snape's: > > Auria responded: > You are making a huge assumption that everything that Snape wrote in > his textbook is coming from one source. No-one here seems to have > considered the fact that MAYBE Snape picked up tips from several other students, perhaps other books too, as well as making some spells of his own. Just because Snape is now a very accomplished Potions and DADA teacher doesn't preclude Lily from also being good at potions. Why should one exclude the other? Snape may well have become such a good potions master from some of the information copied from Lily that he then added to from his own intellect. Rarely does someone learn from only one source. Carol responds: Perhaps you've misunderstood me. I didn't say "one source." I said "the same ingenious mind" (Severus Snape's). I certainly never said that Snape doesn't read. Clearly he does. His detailed response to the DADA question in the OoP Pensieve memory indicates that young Snape not only reads but remembers what he reads. The book-lined walls of Spinner's End show that the adult Snape still reads. But unlike Hermione, with her straight out of the textbook responses, young Snape also questions and analyzes and experiments, as the cross-outs and revisions in his annotated textbook show. (If the annotations were hints given him by someone else or copied from a book, they would surely not be in such rough form.) Since you snipped most of my post, including the canon support, I'll repeat the key points: 1) The potion tips and the spells are all in the same handwriting: young Snape's, and 2) Lily would not have helped to invent Sectumsempra and that the spells in Snape's Potions book are his own inventions, as he claims. 3) If the spells are his own, the potion tips are probably his own as well. To me, it's much more likely that the spells and the potion experiments are the products of the same experimentally oriented mind than that they're the result of an uncharacteristic cooperation between a lonely little Slytherin nerd and a popular Gryffindor "Mudblood." None of which is to say that Lily might not also be good at Potions, but in contrast to the solid evidence in every book of Snape's expert knowledge, all we have to indicate Lily's skill is Slughorn's fond memory of a favorite pupil, which may or may not be accurate. (Slughorn's assessment of Harry's abilities does not speak well of his judgment in that regard.) He may or may not be correct about Lily, but even if he is, her abilities are not in themselves an indication that some of the experiments in the HPB's book could be hers. *That's* an assumption for which you need to present canon evidence. Frankly, I would love to see some. (And no, I'm not being rude or sarcastic. I don't do that.) However, just because two students in the same class are good at the same subject doesn't mean that they will work together. They could as easily be rivals, or wholly indifferent to one another, as friends. Ernie Macmillan is good at Potions. So is Hermione. But they're from different houses and they don't work together in NEWT Potions. And Gryffindor and Slytherin are rival houses. The only time we see Gryffindors working with a Slytherin in Potions is in PoA when Draco's arm is injured and Ron is forced to cut up Draco's slugs and roots. There's also the question of logistics. The different Houses have different common rooms. The only place, aside from class, where Severus and Lily could have worked together is the library. And I doubt that Severus would want to be seen studying with any Gryffindor, especially one he had publicly called a "Mudblood" and who had retaliated by calling him "Snivellus." And Severus Snape, at least from his fifth year onward, appears to be a loner. Certainly he's alone when he's ambushed by James and Sirius. (I think his Slytherin gang consisted mostly of older students who had already graduated, but I discuss that briefly in another post.) The adult Snape is still a loner. Aside from CoS, where the other teachers follow his lead in getting Lockhart out of their hair, when have we seen him working cooperatively with anyone or even sharing a friendly cup of tea? He *reports* to Dumbledore, but he *works* alone. And if he socializes with anyone before "Spinner's End" (not a casual, friendly visit), we've yet to see it. There's nothing to suggest that the young Snape studies with Lily or anyone else. In short, the HBP annotations are in young Snape's handwriting (canon evidence upthread). There is solid evidence that Snape (boy and man) is an expert at both DADA and Potions and that he's a loner. Even if Lily is also good at Potions (and Slughorn's word is our only evidence), that does not in itself indicate that she contributed in any way to the annotations in young Snape's book. You suggest that "maybe" young Snape picked up information from other students, including Lily. Maybe he did. But a possibility is not a fact. ("The fact that MAYBE" is an oxymoron.) I have yet to see canon evidence that the annotations in the HBP's book reflect any ideas or experiments other than his own. Carol, who has spent far too much time on this post From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Sep 18 05:18:46 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 05:18:46 -0000 Subject: The handwriting in the book (Was: Lily and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140389 > Valky: > My thoughts on it are this. Snape's chiefest interest, his pet > subject, is not potions, it's DADA. zgirnius: Do we really know this? I suppose his constanly reapplying for the DADA position is *a* reason to suppose this...but there are other possible reasons which also suggest themselves. Voldemort may have wanted him to apply for that position, for example. Or, he might view it as some sort of public show of trust from Dumbledore to get that position. Or, it may pain him beyond bearing to watch dunderheads muck up his favorite Potions recipes year after year... Valky: > Now I don't know about you, but the words subtle and aesthetic? > fitting words to describe the notations in Snapes book, but Snape? > Goodness! Snape know aesthetics? even if it was staring hard into his > greasy face, the answer is NO no no! zgirnius: Well, actually I don't find it odd to ascribe either quality to Snape. For aesthetics, I'd cite his first ever speech in Potions class. Poetic, that. As far as subtlety, well, I find his brand of sarcasm is sometimes quite subtle (when it is necessary that his victim be unaware she's being victimized, as in my very favorite Snape scene. Towards the end of OotP, in Umbridge's office where she's trying to get him to help her out by providing some Veritaserum.) Valky: > It's not his area to add a sprig > of peppermint to improve a euphoria potion, is it? Surely not. Why > would Snape even *care* about "Euphoria" potion of all things? Let > alone whether it smelled nice or if the dunderhead who bothered to > take it tweaked his nose and burst into foolish song all over the place. zgirnius: I can agree that it is not a potion he necessarily has any use for. But if Potions is a favorite subject if his, then the making of that potion would be an intellectual exercise. (It is in the NEWT-level text out of which he was apparently taught.) And eliminating a known side-effect of it an interesting challenge. Valky: > These things are indeed, above all, the marks of someone with > aesthetic class, someone subtley bewitchingly beautiful, someone who > is most interested in giving to others, a very popular and special > young lady, it fits. Just IMO. zgirnius: So if you are right and I am wrong, maybe the poetic Potions introduction is really a veiled tribute to someone very special? From juli17 at aol.com Sun Sep 18 06:06:45 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 02:06:45 EDT Subject: Sadistic Snape Message-ID: <1a8.3f2f866b.305e5df5@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140390 Betsy said: ... But I believe that exchange shaped Snape's treatment of Harry over the rest of the books. Amiable Dorsai: So he formed a snap impression of Harry from one classroom interaction, either didn't bother to compare notes with his colleagues or ignored their opinions, blinded himself to any evidence that might contradict that opinion, and based his entire approach to Harry on that basis. So he's not a sadist, he's a crank. Gotcha. Thank you for the correction. Julie: I think it's been apparent from the beginning that Snape formed an immediate opinion of Harry and has acted on that since, contrary evidence aside. It's all part of the fact that Snape insists on seeing Harry as a carbon copy of his father, and twists the evidence in his mind to support his conclusion. Which doesn't make him a crank, or a sadist, but a bitter man with tunnel-vision regarding Harry and James. Betsy Hp: It's canon now that there *was* a thought within certain circles that Harry may become a Dark Lord himself, and that Snape was aware of such theories. And Harry does bare an uncanny physical resemblance to James, who did not handle his popularity well (from Snape's POV anyway). Amiable Dorsai: Ah, therefore he decided to alienate the budding young Voldepup, insuring that he, the one person who saw through this Dark Lordlet's facade, would be in no position to influence his character for the better. The brilliance of this gambit just takes my breath away. This then, was not sadism, but stupidity. Check. Julie: No, again it's Snape's tunnel vision. If Harry is like James, who *Snape* sincerely believes was a major berk (true or not) and allowed popularity go to his head, then he has reason to believe Harry might do the same thing. In fact, I too think this is one factor in Snape's treatment of Harry, and the one he uses to justify his abusive behavior. He believes he's "stamping out" that James-like arrogance in Harry. No doubt he enjoys doing it also, the sadist factor, but sadism isn't the only factor, or even the major factor. > >>Amiable Dorsai: > ...insulting an orphan's father... Betsy Hp: Whenever Snape brought up James it was usually (IIRC) when Harry was doing something colossally stupid, like sneaking into Hogsmeade when there was a mass murderer out for his blood. Snape, with good reason (especially after reading some of Sirius's "advice"), was trying to turn Harry away from emulating his father. Snape chose a piss-poor way of going about it, I grant. But again, I see a reason for his behavior. Enjoyment of Harry's suffering wasn't it, IMO. Amiable Dorsai: Because sarcasm and insulting James has always done so much to influence Harry's behavior for the better. Not a sadist then, just a one-trick pony. Okay, got it. Julie: Again, it doesn't matter. Snape insults James because he dislikes James so much. And since he thinks his interpretation of James is accurate, he figures why shouldn't Harry know exactly what kind of man his father was? This isn't effective, but Snape is not a congenitally nice man (one who might keep his opinion to himself to spare hurt feelings), nor is he rational enough on the subject to consider the fact that his attacks on James simply entrench Harry's support of James rather than revealing the *truth* (Snape's version) about James. > >>Amiable Dorsai: > ...insulting a student's looks... Betsy Hp: And by doing so kept his Seeker out of detention and on the field... Amiable Dorsai: He excused despicable behavior from a student because that student was on his House team? So he's not a sadist, he's a cheater. Roger. I'm really beginning to appreciate your analysis of Snape's character. Julie: This is one instance I do think Snape was sadistic, insulting Hermoine simply for his own enjoyment. More about "cheating" below... > >>Amiable Dorsai: > ...playing favorites... Betsy Hp: While not a good thing for a teacher to do, I'm not sure how this is sadistic behavior. Amiable Dorsai: You're right, it does serve better to illuminate his other character flaws, doesn't it? Julie: Umm...I'm not sure it illuminates Snape's character flaws (of which he has plenty) so much as it illuminates the flaws of the Hogwarts "house" system. It's all about house points, about competition, and winners versus losers. The system encourages teachers to play favorites, and Snape isn't the only one who does it. McGonagall does it too. And so does Dumbledore, very much so when it comes to Harry. They all "cheat" a little, though many of the teacher probably don't realize it. It's virtually impossible not to favor *your* kids in this scenario, since the human brain continually reinterprets events, quite often in favor of the interpretation we most desire. > >>Amiable Dorsai: > ...casting aspersions on a student's intelligence to another teacher in front of the student and his classmates... Betsy Hp: Again, not good behavior, but hardly sadistic. (McGonagall made sure everyone in Gryffindor house saw Neville as the house dunce. Why isn't she labeled sadistic?) Amiable Dorsai: Actually, I agree with you that McGonagall is sometimes over the top. This excuses Snape how, exactly? Julie: It doesn't. But I still don't see Snape's behavior here as sadistic. I think he's humiliating Neville because he believes Neville deserves it. Since Snape teaches by humiliation, and seems to believe it is a valid way to induce students to improve their skills in his class, he may think he's delivering "encouragement." I think McGonagall's intent with Neville was similar. Embarass the boy enough and he'll get it right next time. Snape does take more pleasure in it than McGonagall (or at least so Harry perceives), but that doesn't make sadism his chief motive. > >>Amiable Dorsai: > ...making an unjustified criticism of another teacher to that teacher's class... Betsy Hp: As McGonagall does with Trelawney? Again, not very sadistic, to my mind. Amiable Dorsai: Let's see... McGonagall reassured a student who was badly shaken by a spurious prediction of his own imminent death; Snape tried to undercut a colleague against whom he nursed a grudge. Yep, perfectly comparable situations. Julie: Not totally comparable, but again, not sadistic on Snape's part. As you say, he's nursing a grudge. He's "getting back" at Lupin for past wrongs, which is revenge. > >>Amiable Dorsai: > ...threatening to poison a student's pet and then being abusive after he's thwarted... Betsy Hp: Actually, I'd catagorize the toad incident as trying to vividly drive home the lesson that the potions the students are making are *supposed* to be consumed. Frankly, I think Snape was trying to reach Neville here... Amiable Dorsai: 'Cause, you know, threats and intimidation have always worked so well to improve Neville's class performance. Kicking it up a notch will surely create even better results... Julie: And again, Snape doesn't evaluate his methods to see how well they work individually. He's set in his ways as well as in his mindset, which is that if he teaches the students should learn, and if they don't then they deserve to be shamed into performing better. It's not a good method for most kids, but Snape doesn't care about that. Like a lot of other teachers, he sticks with his method, unable or unwilling to consider that he could be *wrong.* Additionally, it does provide an outlet for his frustration over having to teach a bunch of "dunces." Emotionally immature, but not deliberately sadistic, IMO. Betsy Hp: ...It didn't work, unfortunately. And taking five points for Hermione's cheating strikes me as something much less than abusive and certainly not sadistic. Amiable Dorsai: No, just inconsistent. Snape punished Harry because he didn't help Neville; he punished Hermione because she did. Snape does seem to enjoy these little lose-lose situations, doesn't he? Nope, not sadistic at all. Nope, nope. Julie: Nope, not sadistic. Snape doesn't care about lose-lose situations, he cares about incompetence and *defiance.* Hermoine defied him. And disobeyed him, which in this case could justify his taking of points from Gryffindor. (One of the few times it's justified, IMO). >>Amiable Dorsai: > And then there's the time he tried to have the very souls of two innocent men destroyed. Betsy Hp: You mean the mass-murderer and the teacher who helped him into the school where he nearly killed a student? Those innocent men? Shall we accuse Harry of sadism since he expressed a desire to see Sirius dead? Amiable Dorsai: Harry was willing to hear evidence that countered his preconceptions. Snape was not. Julie: Harry doesn't hold a grudge like Snape does. Or Sirius does, BTW. Snape doesn't *want* to hear the evidence, so he doesn't. Just as Sirius doesn't *want* to believe Snape is on the Order's side, so he doesn't. (And it's irrelevant whether Snape eventually proves to be DD'sMan or ESE. If one makes an argument that intuition was enough to justify Sirius's condemnation of Snape despite arguments to the contrary *at the time,* then it's also enough to justify Snape's condemnation of Sirius at that point despite arguments to the contrary). > >>Lealess: > Honestly, Snape is not cut out to be a teacher. > Betsy Hp: I think he's an excellent teacher, myself. I just think he's of a certain (out of favor now unfortunately) sort. It's been discussed ad nauseum, but I don't see any evidence that any student suffered unduly in his classroom. And yes, that includes Neville. Neville who still has a pet toad and who doesn't seem all that afraid of Snape anymore, IMO. Amiable Dorsai: Nor has he any hope of advancing further in a subject closely related to his best field of study. It's kind of ungrateful of me, I suppose, to be so hard on old Snapey; back in college, I used to tutor high school students in math and science. Lazy teachers like Snape provided me with pretty good spending money. It was particularly gratifying, not to mention lucrative, when I found a student who was quite capable of learning the subject, but who had been turned off by incompetent instruction. There was one math teacher, who, like Snape, tried to intimidate his students into learning the material themselves, rather than take the effort to teach it. He was always good for two or three clients a year. Worked out for almost everyone: I had gas and date money, my clients did well enough to pass (one is now an electrical engineer, so at some point, this kid who was "hopeless" at math was solving partial differential equations), the teacher was able to slack off. It saddens me that such teachers are now, as you write, "out of favor" how are today's college students to earn an honest dollar, if that's true? Julie: I agree that Snape isn't a good teacher, though his method may work on *some* students, Hermoine for instance, who takes negative feedback as a motivation to prove the teacher wrong. But neither is Hagrid or Trewlany or Binns. They all leave a number of students unmotivated and inhibit learning with their methods. Though I don't think it has anything to do with sadism, just that too many teachers rely on habitually ineffective methods because they are *comfortable* with them, and have either no ability or no motivation to change. Snape has plenty of faults, including bitterness, intolerance, anger, impatience, a need for vengeance, a lack of empathy, etc, etc. I don't see Snape quite the same way Betsy does, but I do agree that his behavior is not simply--or largely--grounded in sadism. Vmonte also wrote: Carol wrote a very good post regarding Snape the other day that I'm still thinking about. She used information found in the books to make a very interesting case for a loyal Snape. Unfortunately, it's reading comments like yours that make me even surer that the OFH Snape posters are on the right track. Julie: It sounds like you're willing to let your objection to someone else's opinion decide how you view a character--i.e., Snape is OFH because it's better that he be than that you agree with Betsy. Maybe I read that wrong, but I hope if Carol's post is the one that you're still thinking about, that's the one you'll give more weight. Vmonte again: In your quest to make Snape a hero you have begun to attack the true hero of the books. Harry is not the bad guy. Anyone with any "sort of substance" can tell you this is a fact. If the only way you can prove your point about Snape's loyalty is by putting down Harry and company, then I can pretty much place bets right now that your ideas are dead wrong. Julie: I don't think Betsy has attacked the true heroes at all. Harry is responsible for his behavior, just as Snape is responsible for his. A. Dorsai said McGonagall was wrong to humiliate Neville but how does that excuse Snape humiliating Neville?--and it doesn't. Just as Snape's bad behavior doesn't excuse Harry's bad behavior. To put it another way, if Snape performs a thousand bad acts, and Harry performs only ten bad acts, then Harry *still* performs ten bad acts. And since Harry is the hero, we need to see him learn from his errors and rise to the occasion far more than we need to see Snape do so. And while we all know Harry is the hero of the book in the traditional sense, any reader still has the right to find other characters more interesting, even more heroic. There are several posters here who don't name Harry as their favorite HP character, who don't even like him much, which is within their rights. While I can say I would find it hard to be in Harry's head all the time if I didn't much like Harry, I'm more than willing to accept that others might not find it problematic and would still enjoy the books for the characters they do like better. The "sort of substance" comment flew over my head, BTW, because I really don't know what you meant. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Sun Sep 18 06:19:32 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 02:19:32 EDT Subject: Snape and the Longbottoms Message-ID: <83.3020d889.305e60f4@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140391 Subject: C--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > So I theorise that there's a very simple way to connect all those > facts: Snape hated the Longbottoms, considered them even more > dangerous than the Potters, and fully expected LV to think that the > Prophecy applied to their kid. And just like he has with Harry, he's > reported the hate he had for the Longbottoms on their kid. > > Why Snape hated the Longbottoms is an open question, but there are > many possibilities: Actually, I like this, and I'd like to add another reason Snape might loathe Neville. He was *supposed* to be dead, easy, peasy, Japanesy. Just as Harry reminds Snape of James (and maybe Lily in a particularly excruciating way, assuming LOLLIPOPS or similar sweet), Neville reminds Snape of how very pear-shaped everything went at GH. One might even further surmise that Neville's haplessness further exacerbates Snape's teeth-gnashing over what happened; he's "the other boy who lived," and even less worth saving (in Snape's opinion) than Harry. On the other hand, looking at Neville may deepen his guilt; the kid is not in very good shape, but if things had gone according to Snape's assumptions, he'd be in a *tomb*. Interesting idea, Del! Sandy aka msbeadsley Julie: I don't think we know from canon that Neville was supposed to be dead also, do we? I seem to recall Dumbledore only said Voldemort chose Harry as the boy in the prophecy. So if it's only conjecture (even if reasonable conjecture) that Voldemort would have killed Neville too given the chance, then we can't say Snape would have knowledge of that conjectured thing. (Pardon my bad grammar) In any case, it doesn't appear to me that Snape treats Neville and Harry the same way. Every time he goes off on Neville it's because of yet another potion he's bumbled. I'm sure that he's a Gryffindor also doesn't endear him to Snape, but I don't see the same personal vendetta against Neville that Snape has against Harry. If Snape felt guilty or angry that Neville survived, or if he'd planned for him to be the boy Voldemort killed, I think there would be a more personal level to Snape's taunting of Neville, but it's only ever about Neville's potions (in)ability. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catlady at wicca.net Sun Sep 18 06:22:50 2005 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 06:22:50 -0000 Subject: Gravy/Essentialism/Snape/Ages/Werewolf/PopularHermione/Occlumency/Fidelius Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140392 GRAVY Ceridwen wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139969 : << I've been going the other way, that the conjuring of objects (not gravy, unfortunately!) is merely utilizing existant air molecules and transfiguring them into whatever is needed at the time. A limited spell, and when the thing is no longer needed (and maintained), it evaporates back into air molecules. On gravy (sauce), and other things that must remain, I think they're transported somehow, made earlier, and are the property of whoever summons them. Molly could have a store of sauce in her pantry that she made all in one day and set aside for use. Or, that she made earlier, expecting to play hostess to her guests. >> The sandwiches for two hungry young boys who missed the Welcoming Feast because they arrived in a flying car must remain, but if the gravy didn't remain, that would save a few calories (as Steve bboyminn already said). However, my thought on the gravy (other than Freudian imagery!) is that the magic made the gravy out of ingredients in the kitchen cabinets. ESSENTIALISM houyhnhnm wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139982 : << The following passage has me still thinking of Dumbledore as something of an existentialist, though. ""If Voldemort had never heard of the prophecy, would it have been fulfilled? Would it have meant anything? Of course not. (snip) Don't you see? Voldemort himself created his own worst enemy...." (snip) Clearly Voldemort created his future by chosing to act on the prophecy as he did. I guess the question is: Did Voldemort have a choice WRT his choice or was he predestined to chose to act the way he did. >> I think it remains essentialist to say that the future is NOT predestined, but HOW the person meets it when it comes is a reflex rather than a choice. (Hagrid: "What's comin' will come, an' we'll meet it when it does.") Jen Reese wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139983 : << But JKR's choosing to hinge a huge theme of her story on the idea that blood content means nothing for who a person chooses to become. >> You quoted: "You fail to recognize that it matters not what someone is born, but what they grow to be!" That one seed grows to be a tomato vine and another grows to be a pine tree is essentialism and predestination, not choice. Essentialism believes that What a person grows to be depends on his/her essence, not on choices. The only variation JKR is ringing is that a person's essence (unlike that of a non-mutated seed) doesn't depend on his/her ancestry. SNAPE Alla wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139979 : << He did not teach in the position he preferred? It is still much better, IMO, to have a paying job than sitting in Azkaban in close proximity to dementors. >> Anything is better than prolonged proximity to Dementors (maybe except being under prolonged Cruciatis Curse), but I am sure that there were times at Hogwarts where Snape seriously thought about whether imprisonment in Azkaban might be *not as bad* as prolonged proximity to teen and pre-teen students. Pippin wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140016 : << Of course Sirius would have been briefed on [Snape 'informed Voldie that Sirius had returned to England? And Voldemort gave Snape permission to kill Sirius, if he could get away with it'], which throws an interesting light on the handshake at the end of GoF, and the almost duel in OOP. >> Snape and Voldemort could not have already discussed Sirius's return to Britain when S and S shook hands at the end of GoF, because wasn't that scene the first that Snape knew of Sirius's return? Valky wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140385 : << the words subtle and aesthetic? fitting words to describe the notations in Snapes book, but Snape? Goodness! Snape know aesthetics? even if it was staring hard into his greasy face, the answer is NO no no! >> "... the beauty of the softly simmering cauldron with its shimmering fumes, the delicate power of liquids that creep through human veins, bewitching the mind, ensnaring the senses.... I can teach you how to bottle fame, brew glory, even stopper death ..." AGES truthbeauty1 wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140107 : << it appears to me that Filch was around before Dumbledore was headmaster, maybe even when Riddle was a student, but definitely when he cam back to ask for the DADA position. >> In GoF, Molly Weasley reminisces of her and Arthur's student days, when they were out after curfew and Apollyon Pringle caught Arthur -- he was the caretaker before Filch. (Also, in those days, the gamekeeper was a man named Ogg.) There is some confusion about the parental Weasleys' ages, but no way are they older than Tom Riddle. I used to believe a theory that they were in school *with* Riddle, Hagrid, and McGonagall; that's why they remember the gamekeeper who was replaced by Hagrid when Hagrid took the job of gamekeeper at the end of his third year. This theory has, I believe, been shot down by the theory that Hagrid served as apprentice gamekeeper to Ogg for quite a few years. The limit to how young they could be depends on how old Bill (oldest kid) is. In an interview, JKR said that Bill is two years older than Charlie who is two years older than Percy (and we know it's a childbirth every two years until Ginny was just one year after Ron). In another interview, she had to correct that to Charlie being three years older than Percy, or else he would have been in seventh year when Percy was in fifth year in PS/SS. Even three years isn't enough to account for BOOK statements about how long since the legendary Charlie Weasley had played Seeker for Gryffindor. >From the book evidence, I originally had Charlie born 1969 and Bill born 1967, and a gap until Percy in 1976. The Lexicon gives Molly born October 30 1950, Bill born November 29 1970, Charlie born December 12 1972, and Percy born August 22 1976. http://www.hp-lexicon.org/timelines/timeline-year-calendar.html If Molly was born October 30 1950, she would have started Hogwarts in September 1962 and left June 1969. If she was born earlier or later, her years at Hogwarts would be correspondingly earlier or later. When did Riddle apply for the DADA job? If it was before Molly left school, Filch had not yet replaced Pringle. Carol wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140381 : << Her seventh year apparently coincides with Sirius's fourth year, making her about three years older than he is. Since there's another sister, Andromeda, in between Bellatrix and Narcissa, Narcissa is at most one year older than Sirius and possibly in the same year as MWPP and Snape >> If Andromeda is at most two years older than Sirius and James and Lily, how was she old enough to have a daughter four years out of Hogwarts when Harry was 15, in OoP? Andromeda's daughter Tonks was the young Auror in OoP, in whose "Career Counselling" chapter McGonagall said that it had been four years since the Auror department had taken on any newbie. OoP started in summer of 1995 with Harry turning 15 because he was born in July 1980. He still had 3 years of Hogwarts to go (OoP, HBP, and the 7th book) so Tonks was at least 7 years older than him (3 of Hogwarts, 4 of Aurory, plus possibly up to one year of having been born later than the September 1 cut-off for Hogwarts). 15 + 7 = 22, and 23 is more likely. Born in September 1972 thru August 1973 (hey, same age as the Lexicon says Charlie is). If Sirius & James & Lily were born 1959-1960, as seems to be believed nowdays, they were 20 when Harry was born, and 2-years-older Andromeda was born 1957-1958 (like me) and was 15 in 1972-3 when Tonks born. I can't believe that the sisters weren't born Narcissa, Andromeda, Bellatrix instead of the opposite order. WEREWOLF Magpie wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139995 : << Bill is the one person who carries lasting physical scars as a result of what Draco's done, but even with him JKR was careful to not make him a werewolf >> While I completely ignore your very good explanation of Draco's character development, you just reminded me that that Bill stuff answers an old question about whether werewolfism is transferred by the bite of a werewolf all the time or only when in wolf form. (Which someone raised in regards to kissing Remus....) POPULAR HERMIONE Betsy Hp wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140310 : << By HBP she's confident enough to feel she's got her pick of dates to take to Slughorn's Christmas party. >> Just to play Devil's Advocate, maybe she was confident that they all wanted to go to Sluggy's party so much that they didn't care who invited them. OCCLUMENCY Carol wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140314 : << If Harry had been willing and able to learn [Occlumency] (and hadn't looked in the Pensieve), he could have blocked the fake vision of Sirius and Sirius would not have died. >> *sigh* Here we go again. Harry was not receiving LV's thoughts by anything like normal Legilimency, so why would Occlumency, which blocks normal Legilimency, block Harry's reception of LV's thoughts? If Harry was receiving LV's thoughts by normal Legilimency, it would happen when Harry willed it, not when LV willed it, and it would be blocked by LV using Occlumency, not by Harry using Occlumency. There is an argument that DD couldn't tell Harry any classified information because LV would receive it from Harry's thoughts and that Harry should learn Occlumency to prevent that, but LV wasn't using Legilimency to receive Harry's thoughts, so why would Occlumency block even that? FIDELIUS Lolita wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140354 : << Just how did DUMBLEDORE know where to send Hagrid when the place was hidden by Fidelius Charm? Pettigrew outed the Secret to LV, not to him. >> As you quickly mentioned, 12 Grimmauld Place was under the Fidelius Charm and Harry was let into the Secret by *reading a note written by the Secret Keeper*. So I figure that Peter as Secret Keeper told the Secret to Sirius and wrote a note (disguising his handwriting to look like Sirius's) to tell the Secret to DUmbledore, and DD shared the note with Hagrid. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Sep 18 07:23:07 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 07:23:07 -0000 Subject: The handwriting in the book (Was: Lily and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140393 > > Valky: > > My thoughts on it are this. Snape's chiefest interest, his pet > > subject, is not potions, it's DADA. > > zgirnius: > Do we really know this? I suppose his constanly reapplying for the > DADA position is *a* reason to suppose this...but there are other > possible reasons which also suggest themselves. Voldemort may have > wanted him to apply for that position, for example. Or, he might > view it as some sort of public show of trust from Dumbledore to get > that position. Or, it may pain him beyond bearing to watch > dunderheads muck up his favorite Potions recipes year after year... Valky again: I agree they are all reasonable suggestions, but I think we do know that DADA is Snapes pet subject. In Spinners End he tries to impress its value to him upon Bella in his own defense, it's uncharacteristically stupid of him to think that the matter of DD keeeping from DADA would carry any weight if it's not, beyond a doubt, *very* precious to him, agreed? Among other things, his loving caress of a speech about Dark Arts, his inventions, and his reputation for being nose deep in anything Dark Arts since he was a child.. this all speaks multitudes about it. > Valky: > > Now I don't know about you, but the words subtle and aesthetic? > > fitting words to describe the notations in Snapes book, but Snape? > > Goodness! Snape know aesthetics? even if it was staring hard into > > his greasy face, the answer is NO no no! > > zgirnius: > Well, actually I don't find it odd to ascribe either quality to > Snape. For aesthetics, I'd cite his first ever speech in Potions > class. Poetic, that. Catlady quoted: "... the beauty of the softly simmering cauldron with its shimmering fumes, the delicate power of liquids that creep through human veins, bewitching the mind, ensnaring the senses.... I can teach you how to bottle fame, brew glory, even stopper death ..." Valky now: HAha I had a feeling this one would be thrown heavily at me for saying this. I had considered it, yes. But poetry, the aesthetics of speech, it's not going to work in potions since humming lyrically over the cauldron has nothing to do with these recipe changes. There is a definite connection between Snapes fashionable eloquence and his genius in incantation, but it's a different kettle of fish to perfumery, shimmer, and an elegant touch with nature itself. These things would translate into a well groomed person (nice smelling potions), with a gentleness about them (removing less pleasant side effects from the potion), a love and affinity with nature (bean juicing). Snape is neither gentle nor well groomed, he doesn't have the sensitivity required to percieve the growth in Hermione's teeth in GOF, nor does he possess any obvious sensibility about his own appearance. These are the aesthetics that translate into the potions improvements, and they aren't Snapes style. Zgirnius: As far as subtlety, well, I find his brand of sarcasm is > sometimes quite subtle (when it is necessary that his victim be > unaware she's being victimized, as in my very favorite Snape scene. > Towards the end of OotP, in Umbridge's office where she's trying to > get him to help her out by providing some Veritaserum.) Valky: I'll grant you, zgirnius, that I can't argue with this, you are quite right IMO. However, again, the subtlety of the potions improvements are quite the opposite of sarcasm. They are subtle niceties, not cruelties. It's quite the antithesis of Snape. I guess that just leaving at subtle was not the right way to make the point, sorry. > > Valky: > > It's not his area to add a sprig > > of peppermint to improve a euphoria potion, is it? Surely not. Why > > would Snape even *care* about "Euphoria" potion of all things? Let > > alone whether it smelled nice or if the dunderhead who bothered to > > take it tweaked his nose and burst into foolish song all over the > > place. > > zgirnius: > I can agree that it is not a potion he necessarily has any use for. > But if Potions is a favorite subject if his, then the making of that > potion would be an intellectual exercise. (It is in the NEWT-level > text out of which he was apparently taught.) And eliminating a known > side-effect of it an interesting challenge. Valky: I appreciate the argument for this being a purely intellectual exercise, but I don't think it holds. One could intellectually come to discover that peppermint reduces side effects in Euphoria potion. But it's far easier I'd say to be concerned for the drinker and be genuinely interested in providing a service to someone, beforehand. I mean, these are really beyond the call *nice* things to be giving in the course of presenting a potion. The Euphoria potion without a sprig of peppermint is entirely adequate. I see you kind of get my point about that zgirnius, so I won't press on with it. While we were on the subject of Snapes sense of humour I wanted to add a note about the Bezoar. I forgot there so I'll just notch it in here. Just shove a bezoar down their throats. Cheeky, no? Cheeky was Lily's style. It's falling in the wrong field of wit to have Sarcastic Snape behind it. and consider, The same person who intellectually derived improvements to potions recipes through scientific trial an error, gives a cheekfaced attitude to the notion of troubling too much to do the same for an antidote. It's counterintuitive, IMO. > > Valky: > > These things are indeed, above all, the marks of someone with > > aesthetic class, someone subtley bewitchingly beautiful, someone > > who is most interested in giving to others, a very popular and > > special young lady, it fits. Just IMO. > > zgirnius: > So if you are right and I am wrong, maybe the poetic Potions > introduction is really a veiled tribute to someone very special? Valky: I am glad you said that, zgirnius, I honsetly began to think so myself. OTOH I don't think Snape really loved "Lily" in so many words, if that's the case. It's actually IMHO very supportive of the obsessive Snape theory, essentially in Love with how he felt around her, y'know, enchanted, bewitched etc. It's speaks strongly of obsessive love, but says bugger all about really loving the actual person. Don't you think? Valky who hopes the listelves will forgive her overposting in light of the sincerest effort she makes to keep to an overall average of under three per day. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sun Sep 18 09:42:39 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 09:42:39 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Longbottoms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140394 > > Valky: > I know Hickengruendler, you specified that your three theories are pre > HBP, and IMO that is the place where those three and Del's theory fall > down in the middle. > > Does any of these theories give a plausible explantion as to why > Neville was not a target of bullying in Snapes HBP DADA class? > Hickengruendler: Yes, I think they do. At least the second and third one do. Snape realises that Neville is better in DADA than in Potions and therefore not as inept as he thought him to be. Therefore he is less frustrated with Neville than he was before and treats him a bit better. Also, IMO JKR wrote him a bit less horrible in the classroom scenes in the later books. He still enjoys teasing and belittling the students, but he's not extrem as in the earlier books, IMO. From violettaprimrose at hotmail.com Sun Sep 18 04:19:17 2005 From: violettaprimrose at hotmail.com (kmohdia) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 04:19:17 -0000 Subject: Snape ,Dumbledore and Neville Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140395 Basically I believe: 1.Snape isn't a death-eater .He was working on Dumbledore's orders . 2.Dumbledore isn't dead .He made a horcrux. The supportive evidence being: 1.Dumbledore uptill now had deliberately not given the post of DADA to Snape .Why ? We finally get the answer in book 6 p.418 (end of chap. "Lord Voldemort's Request "): " Oh he definately wanted the (DADA) job,"said Dumbledore....You see we have never been able to keep a DADA teacher for longer than a year .." I think that finally Snape got his coveted wish only because Dumbledore needed to use him to get closer to Voldemort and establish his trust by acting as a decoy himself. Snape is Dumbledore's man through and through .Why else would he have saved him ? In chap " horcruxes" Dumbledore says" Had it not been.... for my own ..skill,and for Professor Snape's timely action...I might not have lived to tell the tale." Even if didn't kill Dumbledore to save him for Malfoy to do it because of his " Unbreakable vow ". Why did he spare Harry's life , especially now that he was leaving Hogwart's for good there was no need to cover up his identity of "spy" for Voldemort. That brings me to my next theory that Dumbledore has indeed created a horcrux for himself .As for the idea that he cannot kill ? he has killed .Its obvious :p.470 (chap "horcruxes ") he says :"You are indeed forgetting ...you have destroyed one of them (horcruxes).And I have destroyed another ".So,as he has killed it's almost imposible to believe that Dumbledore would die so easily before he had despensed with Voldermort. The death was too easy ...which supports the fact that it was part of Dumbledore's plan . Recall how he said to Harry ( p.468 ) " the careless way in which Voldemort regarded this Horcrux seemed most ominous to me. It suggested that he must have made ..more Horcruxes ." Well only if he had a horcrux , would Dumbledore so easily let himself die .No matter, if for him " death is but the next adventure for him ".. but I think he wouldn't leave Harry alone ( or the Wizarding world ) to deal with Voldemort esp NOW . What do you think ? ( Mohammedi aka violet ) P.S. I am just wondering what on earth happened to Neville ? He seemed to have disappeared . Any ideas From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Sep 18 05:36:38 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 05:36:38 -0000 Subject: Emma & the HBP (was Re: Harry Potter and Elizabeth Bennet In-Reply-To: <20050917125935.1633.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140396 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: I've read the book "Emma" at least ten > times (knowing the ending does not spoil the re-read, IMO) and have > seen the movie almost as many times. As movie adaptations go, it's > excellent and pre-stardom Gwyneth Paltrow (it was her star-making > role) is perfect. (The only clunker is McEwan's hairpiece [he plays > Frank Churchill]; it looks like a small gopher has crawled under his > hat to die.) I agree. I found the movie to be an excellent adaptation of the book, and as faithful and true to the text as any movie could realistically be, given the difference in the media and the fact that you are adapting an early nineteenth century story for a late twentieth century audience. > > Very true. And I would add that Emma spends a lot of time > manipulating people based on her perceptions of their best interests > - and at the climax is painfully aware of how her mistakes might have > resulted in ruining people's lives. Disaster is averted very close > to the last possible moment. > Hmmm. Emma and Dumbledore? Certainly Dumbledore spends a LOT of time trying to arrange people's lives for them, and I'm not at all sure that disaster has been averted. Like Emma, Dumbly is possessed of an unshakeable belief that he understands peoples motivations, thoughts, and emotions, as well as a breathtaking hubris with regard to his own right to interfere in other people's lives. Whether ultimate disaster will be averted, we will have to see. Lupinlore From sonjamccartCPA at verizon.net Sun Sep 18 05:29:38 2005 From: sonjamccartCPA at verizon.net (sonjaartemisia) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 05:29:38 -0000 Subject: Ancient Magic / The Trio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140397 > Pat: > Isn't there something from one of the interviews where JKR says > something about after Ron got his new wand that "all the elements > were there between the three of them" (no, that's not an exact > quote, just my memory of the interview) for something magical, > power-wise? > > Bookworm: > snip> > Here is part of what she (JKR)wrote: > "Some time after I had given Harry his holly-and-phoenix wand I came > across a description of how the Celts had assigned trees to > different parts of the year and discovered that, entirely by > coincidence, I had assigned Harry the `correct' wood for his > day of birth. I therefore decided to give Ron and Hermione Celtic > wand woods, too." Sonja now: I would like to add that the trio's wands represent the three cores used in the wands (by Ollivander), Harry-phoenix feather, Ron-unicorn hair, and Hermione-dragon heartstring. SonjaArtemisia, who doesn't have the slightest chance of remembering where she read this, but possibly a JKR interview? From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Sun Sep 18 11:29:15 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 11:29:15 -0000 Subject: Why DD trusts Snape, Pettigrew and GH Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140398 Saraquel: I recently posted about the Fidelius Charm, and although I think I might have got a fairly good explanation for how it works, I had missed the subtlety of the situation. I had forgotten that DD didn't know that Sirius was not the secret keeper. Which set me thinking about the problem afresh and my thoughts came round to Pettigrew. I want to float some ideas here and see if they stand up to list scrutiny ? you lot can always be trusted to find the holes :-) Dumbledore thinks that Sirius is the Potters secret keeper and in order for the least number of people to know where they are, relies on Sirius to keep him informed if necessary. Are we are all agreed on that? Sirius decides on the double bluff situation, as outlined by Valky in her post, and Pettigrew becomes the actual secret keeper. Valky wrote: Recall that this was a severely cloak and Dagger affair, Sirius' plan was always intended to *hide* the indentity of the real secret keeper, and bait Voldmeort to chase him to the ends of the earth where he would gladly die with nothing to give. At some point, *before* this happens (I'm not really up with time lines, so help me out if this isn't going to work) Snape comes to DD because he suspects that the Potters are going to be targeted by Voldemort, setting aside the Snape/Lily ship, the life debt could well be enough for his remorse. But, what does Snape know that is almost guaranteed to persuade DD that he has changed sides ? he knows that Pettigrew is a spy for Voldemort. I speculate that this is the reason why DD really trusts Snape, because he shopped Pettigrew. Rather than turf Pettigrew out, DD and Snape now have a cover for Snape, they can feed deliberate misinformation through Pettigrew and real but harmless information through Snape, if necessary. I'm not quite sure at what point Snape started to openly work at Hogwarts or as a 'spy' for Voldemort. If Voldemort starts to suspect a double agent, he will go for Pettigrew rather than Snape, or Snape can finger Pettigrew to Voldemort to get himself off the hook, pointing out that the information he has been feeding him is bogus. At some point later on, Pettigrew is made secret keeper by Sirius. As far as DD and Snape were aware, Sirius was the Potter's secret keeper, and according to how the Fidelius Charm works, even if Pettigrew had known the secret he would not have been able to blab it to Voldemort. Therefore neither DD nor Snape would not have suspected Pettigrew until Sirius turned up in PoA. And finally, now for the bangy bit -Why does DD not want to tell Harry this information ? because DD and Snape kept Pettigrew in the Order, even though they knew he was a spy for Voldemort and they did not let Sirius into the loop. One of DD's huger mistakes I think. How does that sound? Saraquel From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Sep 18 13:05:07 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 13:05:07 -0000 Subject: Sadistic Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140400 >Julie wrote: And while we all know Harry is the hero of the book in the traditional sense, any reader still has the right to find other characters more interesting, even more heroic. There are several posters here who don't name Harry as their favorite HP character, who don't even like him much, which is within their rights. While I can say I would find it hard to be in Harry's head all the time if I didn't much like Harry, I'm more than willing to accept that others might not find it problematic and would still enjoy the books for the characters they do like better. The "sort of substance" comment flew over my head, BTW, because I really don't know what you meant. >Betsy Hp: Lupinlore, I'd take you more seriously if you'd *use the books* instead of just stating opinion. That's why I snipped most of your response. It lacked **** any sort of substance ***. >vmonte: In your quest to make Snape a hero you have begun to attack the true hero of the books. Harry is not the bad guy. Anyone with any "sort of substance" can tell you this is a fact. vmonte again: It's fine with me what people choose to believe about Harry and Snape. It's the smug comments that are used against posters that don't agree with DDM!Snape that I don't like. The simple fact is that if you are going to attack someone for not using canon when stating an idea, you should then use canon on a more regular basis yourself. JKR is consistently portraying Snape as someone with sadistic tendencies (it does not matter whether you have an affinity towards that type of behavior yourself). If JKR really believes that it is our choices that are important, then she is telling us something very important about Snape who continuously chooses to behave inappropriately. If Dumbledore could find it in his heart to forgive Snape, who was a DEATH EATER (and God knows what he did when he was one), then Snape should also be as generous to his students. After all, they are just children, and he is a grown man. I also want to add that Snape was never punished for his crimes (while innocent people like Sirius and Stan Shunpike have), and that Dumbledore treats Snape with respect, and expects others to treat him with respect as well. In light of this, how appropriate is it for Snape to assume anything about Harry, and before he even meets him? Let's just say that Snape wasn't lying when he told Narcissa and Bella that he wasn't sure whether Harry might turn out to be the next evil overlord. If Dumbledore is willing to give Harry a chance, who is Snape not to do the same; considering that he was forgiven for the real sin of being a DE, compared to Harry who has not committed any crime. And why is it OK to be so disrespectful to Harry for the actions of his father? (The fact that Snape is emotionally arrested is not Harry's problem.) If Snape had any "real" epiphany about the mistakes he made in his past he would never do what he is doing in the present. Dumbledore has made a huge mistake in trusting Snape, but it does not mean that the children have not (in some way) learned from him. There is a lot of truth to the saying: "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer." You can learn a lot about the enemy when you have them up close and personal. In this sense I would say that Dumbledore's mistake might turn out to be a gift in the long run. Vivian In the end something spectacular may happen to open Snape's eyes about his true self (I just don't think that moment has yet happened). From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Sun Sep 18 14:08:58 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 14:08:58 -0000 Subject: Sadistic!Snape? (was:Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140401 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > > Marianne: > > > > And, whether or not one wants to characterize this brief exercise > > in terrorizing Neville about the possible demise of his pet as > > sadistic, what has always bothered me is that Snape never changes > > his approach to Neville. Obivously he knows what effect he has on > > Neville, right? I mean, Snape is a superb Occlumens so he must be > > able to "read" Neville. And, his long career as a double agent > > must have honed his skills in reading people through their > > slightest facial ticks and reactions to a razor's edge. So, I can't > > for a moment believe he had no idea of his impact on Neville. Nora: > This has always made me wonder, too, about whether a fundamental > assumption is correct. Okay, let's take as given that Snape is very > perceptive. > If Snape is that perceptive, then he'd have to realize what effect > he's having on both Harry and Neville, right? And so he must then be > doing it deliberately, since he doesn't change. I think he must be able to have enough self-control, > otherwise how could he possibly be the super-spy that he is? Aren't > all of Snape's actions careful, calculated, and deliberate in this > model? > > Now we still have the open category of "Yes, he's doing it > deliberately, but he's doing it for the best of reasons." Which then > raises the question: what kinds of reasons would necessitate keeping > one student scared and lacking confidence, and building a large level > of enmity with another student who's desperately important to the > destruction of Voldie, something DDM!Snape must also badly want? Marianne: > > Maybe what it comes down to is that Snape has no idea that not all > > people will react the same way to the same style of teaching. > > Snape realized that Neville would bumble his way through Potions, > > and, since that was all he could do, that was all Snape expected. > > It never seemed to occur to him that perhaps trying a different > > tact with this student might have gotten better results. Nora: > Option three: he doesn't really care about Neville learning; at least > not enough to try a different tact. Marianne: Option four: The Einstein Explanation. As that illustrious scientist once said: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Maybe Snape has some sort of mental problem. Marianne, tongue firmly in cheek From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Sun Sep 18 14:10:47 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 14:10:47 -0000 Subject: Voldie's Wand and other details In-Reply-To: <001801c5bbb3$af4fa660$704b6d51@f3b7j4> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140402 manawydan: I think that canon makes it clear that Dumbledore _hasn't_ spoken to Hagrid between his rescuing Harry and the rendezvous at Privet Drive. Amiable Dorsai: I agree that there's been little detailed communication between them, but I think there's room for some limited communication. That or Dumbledore knew a whole lot more than sees to have been possible. I suppose an alternate explanation could be that Dumbledore Apparated or Portkeyed them both to Godric's Hollow, instantly figured out what had happened and what needed to be done, told Hagrid to take Harry and deliver him to the Dursleys at Midnight the next night, then bugged out, leaving Hagrid to his own devices, before Harry was pulled from the wreckage. This seems unlikely. But if they had a few terse exchanges--say by Patronus messenger and/or hastily written notes passed by Fawkes--then the odd mixture of knowledge and ignorance shown by Dumbledore at Little Whinging is easy to understand. manawydan: I also think that there is actually very little time available between Voldemort's dispersal and all hell breaking loose for Harry to be rescued and spirited away. Amiable Dorsai: I figure Dumbledore gave Hagrid a one-way Portkey to Godric's Hollow. Why one-way? Because of the possibility that Hagrid might be killed or captured, he didn't want to give Death Eaters, or Voldemort himself, a ticket to Hogwarts. manawydan: The battle between Voldemort and the Potters must have created a lot of noise, especially once the house fell down. The local Muggles, observing the collapse of a house that they'd never really noticed before, would have phoned for the police/fire brigade/ambulance. How fast would they have arrived? Depends how remote a village Godric's is, but they'd have been on their way post haste. In that small space of time, Hagrid has to arrive, rescue Harry, converse with Sirius, and fly off, not only before the Muggles start "swarming around" but also before the Ministry arrive to clean up - if he's seen, then not only will he be in trouble for using magic but there could also be all sorts of questions about Harry's custody. Amiable Dorsai: Yeah, that's why I figure Hagrid has to arrive by Apparition or Portkey. Your point about custody is well-taken, but I think that's simply another reason why Dumbledore had Hagrid bug out ASAP. It must have been too late, though. The rumor that Harry had survived was out before lunchtime. Of course, Hagrid, being Hagrid, might simply have run into, and gossiped with, the wrong people. Or Sirius told people that Harry was alive, while he was grilling them for information on Peter's whereabouts. manawydan: My own theory is that Dumbledore learns of the attack (though not of Peter's betrayal) _before_ the event, though not quite long enough before to prevent it. Amiable Dorsai: This idea has a lot to recommend it, particularly if all Dumbledore knows is that there is to be an attack on one or both of the two possible subjects of the prophecy. He might only have had time to try to defend one of them, so he flipped a coin and chose the wrong one, or, assuming he didn't know where the Potters were hidden, he went to the Longbottoms because he did know where they were hiding--perhaps he was their Secret Keeper. Perhaps he took Hagrid with him, then Portkeyed him to Godric's Hollow to reconnoiter when the expected attack on the Longbottom's didn't occur on schedule, or when he suddenly realized that he knew where the Potter's were hiding, indicating that their Fidelius Charm had failed. Not knowing that Voldemort had crippled himself, he would have stayed with the Longbottoms, assuming that Voldemort was going to finish the job that night. Amiable Dorsai: >Once it gets dark, he sends a message to Hagrid: Meet me at number >four, Privet Drive, Little Whinging, Surrey. manawydan: Has to have been earlier than this, McGonagall is there quite early on and keeps an eye on the place all day. Why? Possibly in case the surviving DEs decide to thwart Dumbledore's plans by attacking the Dursleys? Amiable Dorsai: McGonagall's presence at Privet Dive is troubling. Dumbledore expresses surprise at it, and he is not forthcoming with her about his real reason--the Blood Protection--for leaving Harry with the Dursleys. It's possible that Minerva, who was Lily's Head of House, not to mention a fellow member of the Order, simply put two and two together. Maybe she simply expected someone--not Dumbledore, necessarily--to take Harry to the Dursleys because Petunia was Harry's closest relative and that was simply standard operating procedure. Maybe she felt close enough to James and Lily to want to make certain that the Dursleys would make suitable guardians. Maybe I'm multiplying assumptions. manawydan: I suspect that DD and the rest of the Order (together with the Aurors) are been busy all day rounding up Voldemort's minions. Amiable Dorsai: There are a couple of problems: How does Dumbledore, or anyone else who was not there, know what happened? What clues McGonagall to go to Little Whinging? manawydan: One possible theory is that Hagrid wasn't alone. Someone else went with him and stayed there to give the story to the Ministry and the media when they arrived. They also reported back to Dumbledore. But Dumbledore and McGonagall haven't spoken before they meet that evening, Hagrid is the one who gave her the message. Amiable Dorsai: Or maybe--and this just occurred to me--Sirius told her. It might have gone something like this: Sirius lets Hagrid take Harry and gives him his motorbike. He goes rat hunting, contacting various people who might have an idea where Peter could be. One of the people he contacts is Minerva McGonagall. While he's talking to her, a horrible thought occurs to him--Petunia is the other logical person to get custody of Harry, besides him. He asks Minerva to make sure that doesn't happen. Minerva is of two minds on this. On the one hand, Sirius is Harry's godfather, a position that apparently carries considerable weight among Wizards. On the other, she's not sure that Sirius would make a suitable guardian. She has seven years of experience with Sirius as a troublemaker and irresponsible practical joker. So she goes to Little Whinging herself, to see what kind of people the Dursleys are for herself. She concludes that they would be terrible guardians, but then Dumbledore himself, her boss at Hogwarts, her leader in the Order, and the acknowledged greatest wizard of his time, shows up with Harry and declares that he must stay with the Dursleys. Minerva tries to talk him out of it, but ultimately capitulates. Maybe she thought there would be time to sort things out later. The problem with this theory is that Minerva doesn't seem to have talked to an eyewitness--she refers to rumors. Of course, if it was Sirius who told her most of what she knows, perhaps she discounted it. After all, Sirius Black probably lied to her any number of times while she was his head of house. Amiable Dorsai From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Sep 18 06:20:59 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 06:20:59 -0000 Subject: Face it, there is a reward for being nice (was Re: Sadistic Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140403 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > It distances us from the characters a little, yes. But that's > JKR being post-modern again. Just because something would make > the story more affecting doesn't mean it's true. Think of all the > little kids who were disappointed that Snape wasn't the villain in > SS/PS. Snape makes a much more satisfactory villain than > Quirrell or Voldemort, but it doesn't mean that's what he is. > Postmodern? By some definitions of the term, yes. Perhaps JKR even intends it that way. But I think it (the distancing effect by which we often find ourselves unable to sympathize with the characters and feeling contempt for Hogwarts) is much more likely to just be poor writing and bad characterization. Let's face it, JKR is often ham- fisted beyond belief and deeply enslaved to exhausted and boring formulas about heroes and their journeys. I don't see much in JKR's writing or statements that leads me to believe that she is trying to particularly "postmodern" -- whatever that means, since if you ask ten people you'll get 25 answers, including multiple answers as to whether there really IS such a thing or not (a lot of times it depends on the field of expertise of the person you are asking). She may intend to be postmodern sometimes by her own understanding -- although I haven't the slightest idea how she would define the term postmodernism. In fact, I think what JKR is really trying to do is emphasize her moral story (concerning which I don't think she has a "postmodern" thought in her head by almost any common definition of the term) by doing everything in her power to emphasize how "heroic" Harry and his friends are. That means surrounding them with incompetent and corrupt adults, or no adults at all. And thus her writing is sometimes ham-fisted and her characterization so unbelievable as to jar you right out of the narrative. Why has Harry lost all his father figures? To emphasize how heroic he is. Why is the wizarding world corrupt? To emphasize how morally heroic Harry and his friends are. Why does no one pay attention to Harry's emotional and, often, even his physical hurts? To emphasize how heroic he is. Why is Hogwarts such a poorly run school filled with such poor and/or abusive teachers? To emphasize how heroic Harry is. Is she trying to create an alternative world with alternative values in some kind of literary multi-cultural exercise? I don't think she is trying to do any such thing. She is, quite to the contrary, trying to tell what is at its heart a very traditional story about very traditional kinds of moral heroism, and if emphasizing the shining quality of that moral purity means making the Wizarding World look like a repellant and unbelievable cesspool, then so much the worse for the Wizarding World. It really is tiresome, boring, and often very poorly written. Up until book 5, these unfortunate weaknesses were largely in abeyance, covered by periods of humor, fabulously quirky episodes, an overall sense of wonder, and a sense of confidence that the story was headed toward a delightful, creative, and well-written climax. However, unfortunately it appears that near the end of GoF the story completely jumped the shark and became a ham-handed morality tale slavishly enthralled to exhausted formulas in which Harry must be completely alone and unsupported except for a few friends (and, of course, the love of his life!) and beset at every side by corruption, incompetence, treachery, evil, and strict boundaries fenced with thorns and enscribed with the Gospel according to Joseph Campbell -- because all of that makes him THE HERO, you see. If the seventh book isn't a spectacular rescue of the series, I suspect in the future a very prominent theme will be wonder at how four such triumphs (the first four books) could be followed by three thunderous disasters (the last three books, if the seventh book doesn't manage to avoid the trainwreck set in motion by books five and six). Lupinlore From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Sun Sep 18 14:31:59 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 14:31:59 -0000 Subject: Sadistic!Snape? (was:Snape's canon opposite/ Proving loyalty...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140404 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > Marianne: > > > I mean, Snape is a superb Occlumens so he must be > > able to "read" Neville. > > houyhnhnm: > > How does Occlumency enable the practitioner to read another person? Marianne: Sorry. I was being somewhat flip in my descriptions of Snape's abilities in my previous post. But, you're right - I"m mixing my mind-invading/defending skills like a crazed Cuisinart. Snape is certainly a good enough Legilimens to be able to fly through Harry's mental defenses with no problem. I'm sure he'd be able to poke through Neville's mind without much struggle. And, though we've never heard him yell "Legilimens!" anywhere except OoP, he probably can do that one silently, too, like that silent curse that pushed DD off the Tower ;-). Marianne From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sun Sep 18 13:54:33 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 13:54:33 -0000 Subject: Sadistic Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140405 vmonte wrote: "It's fine with me what people choose to believe about Harry and Snape. It's the smug comments that are used against posters that don't agree with DDM!Snape that I don't like." Del replies: Smug comments are used by people on both sides of the Snape fence. I even remember several instances of people saying that whoever defends Snape is just as evil as he is. *shrugs* Vmonte wrote: "The simple fact is that if you are going to attack someone for not using canon when stating an idea, you should then use canon on a more regular basis yourself." Del replies: Betsy does use canon regularly. The problem is that she doesn't necessarily interpret it the same way others do. vmonte wrote: "If Dumbledore could find it in his heart to forgive Snape, who was a DEATH EATER (and God knows what he did when he was one), then Snape should also be as generous to his students." Del replies: Why? Just because you and I think it's the best thing to do doesn't mean Snape "should" do it. RL example: I'm a Christian, and Jesus taught in the Bible that I must forgive other people if I want Him to forgive me. So because I have promised to obey Him, and because I really want Him to forgive me, I do try and do my best to forgive everyone else. But if a friend tells me that they don't believe in that line of thinking, I won't go and tell them that they should do it anyway. If Snape thinks it's OK to keep small grudges even after someone forgave him something big, that's his right. If he doesn't think that DD's choices should have an influence on his own choices, that's his right. And he's definitely not the first human being to transfer a grudge against the father on the son. In some circles it's even considered the right and honourable thing to do, for a son to pick up his father's fights. It's definitely not the way I want to live my life, but if other people want to do so, who am I to tell them they are wrong? I can try to show them how they end up hurting themselves, how they spend so much energy and time on things that don't deserve it in the end, and so on, but I can't pass a moral judgement on them, because they don't share my moral system anyway. vmonte wrote: "I also want to add that Snape was never punished for his crimes (while innocent people like Sirius and Stan Shunpike have), and that Dumbledore treats Snape with respect, and expects others to treat him with respect as well. " Del replies: DD's choices, not Snape's. If Snape doesn't want to feel bound by DD's choices, that's his right. vmonte wrote: "In light of this, how appropriate is it for Snape to assume anything about Harry, and before he even meets him?" Del replies: Appropriate by whose standards? By Snape's standards, it's apparently a most appropriate thing to do. vmonte wrote: "If Dumbledore is willing to give Harry a chance, who is Snape not to do the same; considering that he was forgiven for the real sin of being a DE, compared to Harry who has not committed any crime. " Del replies: Snape is his own man. If he doesn't want to be bound by DD's choices and morality, that's his right. vmonte wrote: "And why is it OK to be so disrespectful to Harry for the actions of his father?" Del replies: It's not OK by your and my standards. But for someone with a vendetta kind of mindset, like Snape, it's not only OK but to be expected. vmonte wrote: "(The fact that Snape is emotionally arrested is not Harry's problem.)" Del replies: More precisely, it's not something Harry is responsible for, and it's something Harry can do very little about. But it is very much Harry's problem, just like it is our problem if our neighbour hates us. Pretending the problem doesn't exist isn't going to help. vmonte wrote: "If Snape had any "real" epiphany about the mistakes he made in his past he would never do what he is doing in the present. " Del replies: First, it would depend on what kind of epiphany he had. And second, simply having an epiphany doesn't automatically mean that someone is going to change their life. Many people have "epiphanies" where they realise that something they have done was horrible, but they don't do anything about it, and after a while the epiphany fades away and they go back to their old ways. vmonte wrote: "In the end something spectacular may happen to open Snape's eyes about his true self (I just don't think that moment has yet happened)." Del replies: Maybe it will, maybe it won't. In RL, it wouldn't necessarily happen. Snape would just keep going on with his miserable, hate-filled, bitter life. If Harry survives, Snape might decide to move away from Britain, but that's about it. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that what Snape is doing is nice. I'm just saying that it's his right to act that way if he wants to. I personally aim for a different kind of morality (some would call it "higher", but that's a moral judgement in itself, which can't be made as long as we don't agree on a common moral system), and I'm teaching my kid to do so too. But there's nothing inherently wrong in being bitter, vengeful, unfair and cruel. It's a perfectly human way of life, that many people around the world choose as their own (or don't decide to get out of). It's sad, but it's perfectly valid. JMO, of course. Del From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sun Sep 18 14:44:05 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 14:44:05 -0000 Subject: The handwriting in the book (Was: Lily and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140406 > Valky: > I agree they are all reasonable suggestions, but I think we do know > that DADA is Snapes pet subject. > Among other things, his loving caress of a speech about Dark Arts, his inventions, and his reputation for being nose deep in anything Dark Arts since he was a child.. this all speaks multitudes about it. > Dungrollin: (Forgive me for butting in) On the other hand, the 'foolish wand- waving' comment suggests to me a love of theory and its application to practical matters. > > zgirnius: > > Well, actually I don't find it odd to ascribe either quality to > > Snape. For aesthetics, I'd cite his first ever speech in Potions > > class. Poetic, that. > > Valky now: > HAha I had a feeling this one would be thrown heavily at me for saying this. I had considered it, yes. But poetry, the aesthetics of speech, it's not going to work in potions since humming lyrically over the cauldron has nothing to do with these recipe changes. There is a definite connection between Snapes fashionable eloquence and his genius in incantation, but it's a different kettle of fish to perfumery, shimmer, and an elegant touch with nature itself. These things would translate into a well groomed person (nice smelling potions), with a gentleness about them (removing less pleasant side effects from the potion), a love and affinity with nature (bean juicing). Snape is neither gentle nor well groomed, he doesn't have the sensitivity required to percieve the growth in Hermione's teeth in GOF, nor does he possess any obvious sensibility about his own appearance. These are the aesthetics that translate into the potions improvements, and they aren't Snapes style. > Dungrollin: Sooo... ugly people can't appreciate a Titian or Rembrandt? Ever seen Rembrandt's self-portrait? Okay, I know that's not what you were arguing, but it's like saying that all Doctors must have a wonderful bedside manner because they're there to cure people. It's just not true, and neither is it true in the Potterverse: Madam Pomfrey's quite scary, and I don't remember offhand any sign of gentleness in her among the many times Harry ends up in the hospital wing. And I think that translating a more efficient way of getting juice out of a bean into a love of nature is a bit of a stretch. In the area of science in which I work there is a great distinction between those who love field work (getting your hands dirty, trekking to remote locations in search of data) and those who spend all their time in the lab, and order in all the stuff they need from elsewhere. We've never heard of a potions field trip, all the ingredients are in the store cupboard, or sold by apothecaries. The closest we get is Slughorn talking to Professor Sprout about picking something at twilight, and then taking the acromantula venom and eyeing up Hagrid's Unicorn tail hairs - though that's for making a bit of extra cash, nothing to do with not being able to get hold of the ingredients. And, furthermore, why should a love of nature (if it's a valid deduction, which I don't think it is) be more obviously ascribable to Lily than Snape? Did we hear about her and James going for long walks in the countryside around Hogsmeade and I've forgotten? > > Valky: > > > It's not his area to add a sprig > > > of peppermint to improve a euphoria potion, is it? Surely not. Why would Snape even *care* about "Euphoria" potion of all things? Let alone whether it smelled nice or if the dunderhead who bothered to take it tweaked his nose and burst into foolish song all over the > place. > Dungrollin: Well... I can think of a good number of underhand reasons. A Euphoria potion might be quite useful if you needed to get somebody to do something they wouldn't ordinarily have the confidence to do. I suppose that it's quite well known that there are side effects to many potions. If you were trundling along euphorically, about to do something daring that you'd never otherwise do and found yourself tweaking noses and bursting into song, you might suddenly think "Hang on - I remember reading something about this..." then become suspicious that you were under the influence of a behaviour- changing potion, and decide that going to bed to sleep it off (cheerfully) is a much better idea. If, on the other hand, you simply found yourself euphoric and decided to do something you wouldn't normally do and there were *no* tell-tale signs that something was amiss, the devious schemer's plan would be more likely to work, wouldn't it? > > zgirnius: > > I can agree that it is not a potion he necessarily has any use for. But if Potions is a favorite subject if his, then the making of that potion would be an intellectual exercise. (It is in the NEWT- level text out of which he was apparently taught.) And eliminating a known side-effect of it an interesting challenge. > > Valky: > I appreciate the argument for this being a purely intellectual > exercise, but I don't think it holds. One could intellectually come to discover that peppermint reduces side effects in Euphoria potion. But it's far easier I'd say to be concerned for the drinker and be genuinely interested in providing a service to someone, beforehand. I mean, these are really beyond the call *nice* things to be giving in the course of presenting a potion. The Euphoria potion without a sprig of peppermint is entirely adequate. > Dungrollin: Intellectual exercises often find their way towards practical applications - that's the great thing about pure research, while you're doing it you have absolutely no idea whether what you find out will have any use - you may even be certain that it won't. However, a few years later another 'purely intellectual exercise' may lead to an insight which, in combination with a previously unapplicable result can be practically applied to produce a tangible improvement. And (to repeat myself), I see no reason to assume that someone who invents a way of reducing the side effects of a drug or potion has to be in any way concerned with the well-being of the person who takes it. It's like suggesting that a construction engineer who's working on a hospital must be a philanthropist, or that anyone who's done research into cancer treatment must be a saint. They're not saints, they're researchers, driven by a desire to understand the world and how it works. (Okay, some of them *might* be saints, but my point is that it is not a prerequisite for the job, nor is it a prerequisite for having an interest in the subject...) Valky: > While we were on the subject of Snapes sense of humour I wanted to add a note about the Bezoar. I forgot there so I'll just notch it in here. Just shove a bezoar down their throats. Cheeky, no? Cheeky was Lily's style. It's falling in the wrong field of wit to have Sarcastic Snape behind it. > Dungrollin: Hmm... I don't think we've got enough information to pin it to Lily's style. To me it sounds more like Ron than anybody. I agree that it doesn't sound bitter enough for Snape, though there's a tinge of arrogance to it that reminds me of Sirius and James. I read it as a clue that Snape wasn't always bitter and dismissive and cold. Current Snape would write simply "Bezoar. Does this fool know nothing?" Valky: and consider, The same person who intellectually derived improvements to potions recipes through scientific trial an error, gives a cheekfaced attitude to the notion of troubling too much to do the same for an antidote. It's counterintuitive, IMO. Dungrollin: But it wasn't that he didn't bother with the antidotes, Harry seems to think that the Half-Blood Prince had (like Hermione) understood the theory with no problem. Snape may not ever have found an improvement on the method of using 'Specialis revelio' to separate the poisons, testing them and producing their antidotes, and then finding that other ingredient which makes the whole work (hence the fact that Harry found no notes on this). Actually, the tone suggests to me that Snape understood it, and did it, but couldn't improve on it, and irritably wondered what was the point of going through the whole laborious procedure anyway when you could just shove a bezoar down their throats. Dungrollin Utterly convinced that Snape has a deep love of learning, and reading, and enquiring about the universe. From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Sun Sep 18 15:23:41 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 15:23:41 -0000 Subject: Voldie's Wand and other details In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140407 Amiable Dorsai (yesterday): Some time later, Dumbledore receives the message, and has a problem--Voldemort has somehow cracked the Fidelius Charm. Lolita: The problem, as I see it, is not in LV cracking the Fidelius (I'll deal with it in a moment). No, the problem is the following: Just how did DUMBLEDORE know where to send Hagrid when the place was hidden by Fidelius Charm? Pettigrew outed the Secret to LV, not to him. Amiable Dorsai: Most likely, Peter wrote a note, probably with disguised handwriting, telling him. Lolita: (*Mind you, this is a whole new can of worms. 12 GP was protected by Fidelius. Fair enough. But when Kreacher showed up at Narcissa's door, how come that she didn't figure out that the HQ of the Order must be at 12 GP? It doesn't matter that the house is unplottable, or that it's fidelioused. Narcissa grew up there. Amiable Dorsai: No she didn't, she's Sirius' cousin, not his sister. But she probably did know where her aunt and uncle's house was. I think the Fidelius must, like the Obliviate Charm, modify people's memories. Lolita: This is how the Fidelius charm is supposed to work. Only those that the Secret Keeper himself has let in on the secret can find the place. NO ONE else. No matter what. We have yet to see what happens to 12 GP now that DD is dead. Amiable Dorsai: Or, apparently, the rightful owner. Interesting limitation. Lolita: But, as we saw, no one had ANY problems whatsoever in finding the place (DD knew where to send Hagrid, Hagrid found the place easily, and the same goes for Sirius). Just what are we supposed to swallow here? Unless the Secret gets outed with the death of the CASTER of the Fidelius charm (I would bet on Lily, wasn't her wand supposed to be good for Charms?). Amiable Dorsai: Certainly a possibility, but again, Peter could easily have informed Dumbledore and Hagrid by means of disguised handwriting, and he would certainly have simply told Sirius. Sirius might even have been there for the initial casting, which, I agree, was most likely performed by Lily. Amiable Dorsai: At this point, he probably can't wrap his mind around the idea of Sirius Black betraying James Potter, so he must conclude that LV has figured out another way to bust a Fidelius--that means the Longbottoms are in danger. Lolita: Personally, I don't think DD had any problems with believing this. For one thing, we heard from Snape that the whole Werewolf episode happened because he was *told* - by Sirius - to enter the passage under the Whomping Willow. Amiable Dorsai: I'm sure Dumbledore didn't think Sirius was a saint, I'm suggesting Dumbledore simply thought that there was no way he was going to betray James Potter. This assessment tuned out to be correct. Lolita: All this aside, DD knew that LV was a Legilimens - and an extremely powerful one, to boot. Sirius (and for that matter, even Pettigrew) didn't have to TELL LV the secret at all. Locking eyes with him would have been enough. DD KNEW this. And yet, he let the Potters take Sirius for their Secret Keeper. He didn't try to dissuade them, by telling them that, if LV managed to capture Sirius, and even if Sirius flatly refused to tell him the secret, LV would read it with ease just by looking Sirius - who is no Occlumens, and who, at this time of his life, probably doesn't even know what either Legilemcy or Occlumency are - in the eye. Add this to the list of DD's mistakes. Amiable Dorsai: Maybe the secret can be found by Legilimency, maybe not. We have no canon either way. Either way, it wasn't Dumbledore's mistake, it was, James's, Lily's, and Sirius's. I'm not sure that it was a bad idea, though. Had Peter stayed faithful, it might have worked. Why would James and Lily, even knowing that the secret could be spilled by Legilimency, decide not to use Dumbledore as their Secret Keeper? I assume they knew at least the first half of the Prophecy: Dumbledore would probably have to tell them that much to get them to go into hiding. So they knew that Dumbledore was *not* the one with the "power to defeat the Dark Lord". So Dumbledore could fall. If as you and many others have surmised, the Fidelius ends when its caster dies, they would then be exposed. Sirius describes the idea of using Peter as a "double bluff", with out explaining what he means, precisely, but I assume the idea is this: Voldemort will assume that Dumbledore is the Potter's SK, so he'll go after Dumbledore. If he somehow manages to defeat Dumbledore, and the Potters still can't be found, he'll target Sirius--either because he's the next logical choice, or because LV manages to force the identity of the SK out of a defeated Dumbledore. Sirius is a very tricky customer--it could take a very long time for Voldemort to find him. By the time Voldemort gets down to Peter, Harry may be ready to take him on, or Neville maybe revealed as the true Chosen one. Lolita: And add the whole sorry episode to the list of Black and Potter's instances of sheer stupidity. Has it never occured to either James or Lily that the best thing would be for one of them to be the Secret Keeper? Why drag either Sirius or Peter into this? In OotP, DD, who is the founder and a memebr of the Order is its Secret Keeper. This is how it is supposed to be done. In the case of the Potters, the best course of action would have been for one of them to be the Secret Keeper, and thus to keep both the secret and its keeper where LV could not find them. But no. They had to drag a third person into this, and botch the whole thing by it. (And they probably botched the casting as well. There is no other explanation for everyone being able to find the house when the Keeper outed the secret to just one person, and was still alive. Or at least, there is no other explanation that I can think of.) Amiable Dorsai: Perhaps it's not a good idea to be your own Secret Keeper. Maybe it weakens the charm. Dumbledore doesn't seem to spend much time at Grimmauld Place. But there's no reason at all to assume they botched the casting. Dumbledore, Hagrid, and Sirius all had valid reasons to know the Secret, and there was an easy way to communicate it to them. Amiable Dorsai From lealess at yahoo.com Sun Sep 18 15:34:41 2005 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 15:34:41 -0000 Subject: Voldie's Wand and other details In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140408 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "saraquel_omphale" wrote: > It's a question of what is > charmed, the house or the Potters? I'm inclined to think that it was > the house. Pettigrew charmed the house, using the Fidelius, hence, > as the caster, he still had access to its whereabouts. Once the > house is destroyed, the charm is broken and just like magic, anyone > who ever knew where GH was can remember/find it again. I have no > doubt that DD was the one who suggested in the first place, that the > Potter's hide at GH. > I agree that the house is protected by the Fidelius charm, but to some extent, the house's inhabitants may also be protected by being in the charmed location, not just by being indoors *anywhere*. The Order provided a guard for Harry on his trip to 12 Grimmauld Place but once there, they ignored him. We had Severus Snape and Remus Lupin, two double-agents, going in and out of the house without interruption. If Snape or Lupin was Voldemort's-Man, what was to prevent the double-agent from blowing up the whole charmed house, or poisoning its inhabitants, or killing a person isolated in his bedroom then disappearing into the night? What's the use of having a charm on a place if a person, aware of the location but unable to speak its name or lead others to it without the Secret Keeper's permission, can still infiltrate and wreak internal havoc? Mundungus Fletcher was able to steal items from 12 Grimmauld Place while it was under Fidelius, so wrongdoing of some kind can occur, but perhaps not physical harm to its inhabitants. The almost-duel between Black and Snape -- I wonder if it could have ever come to actual harm. Lupin may have had the same access to Godric's Hollow as Order members had to 12 Grimmauld Place. If Lupin was Ever-So-Evil, what was preventing him from finishing off the Potters in their own home? Pettigrew might have been fingered for the crime, not Lupin. It seems only when the Secret Keeper renounces the *intent* of the charm, protection, that the charm becomes void and evil-doers can inflict harm. Does this make sense? lealess From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Sep 18 16:03:45 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 16:03:45 -0000 Subject: Sadistic Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140409 >vmonte wrote: "I also want to add that Snape was never punished for his crimes (while innocent people like Sirius and Stan Shunpike have), and that Dumbledore treats Snape with respect, and expects others to treat him with respect as well. " >Del replies: DD's choices, not Snape's. If Snape doesn't want to feel bound by DD's choices, that's his right. >vmonte wrote: "In light of this, how appropriate is it for Snape to assume anything about Harry, and before he even meets him?" >Del replies: Appropriate by whose standards? By Snape's standards, it's apparently a most appropriate thing to do. >vmonte wrote: "If Dumbledore is willing to give Harry a chance, who is Snape not to do the same; considering that he was forgiven for the real sin of being a DE, compared to Harry who has not committed any crime. " >Del replies: Snape is his own man. If he doesn't want to be bound by DD's choices and morality, that's his right. >vmonte wrote: "And why is it OK to be so disrespectful to Harry for the actions of his father?" >Del replies: It's not OK by your and my standards. But for someone with a vendetta kind of mindset, like Snape, it's not only OK but to be expected. >vmonte wrote: "(The fact that Snape is emotionally arrested is not Harry's problem.)" >Del replies: More precisely, it's not something Harry is responsible for, and it's something Harry can do very little about. But it is very much Harry's problem, just like it is our problem if our neighbour hates us. Pretending the problem doesn't exist isn't going to help. >vmonte wrote: "If Snape had any "real" epiphany about the mistakes he made in his past he would never do what he is doing in the present. " >Del replies: First, it would depend on what kind of epiphany he had. And second, simply having an epiphany doesn't automatically mean that someone is going to change their life. Many people have "epiphanies" where they realise that something they have done was horrible, but they don't do anything about it, and after a while the epiphany fades away and they go back to their old ways. vmonte again: You just comfirmed what I've been saying about Snape. He behaves inappropriately because he does not feel bound to do the right thing, he has not learned the appropriate standards of conduct from Dumbledore, he has a vendetta against a dead man, he's emotionally arrested, and it is not certain whether he ever had an ephiphany. In short, he has behaved like a deeply horrible and sadistic person. But it's all an act right? But he is still good right? But he cannot help his actions because he is a vampire, he is cursed by the DADA curse, Harry is the real bad guy, those brats deserve to be put in their place, the unbreakable vow wasn't really unbreakable/and or it was, he had no choice but to kill Dumbledore, Dumbledore was too weak to be much use anyway, Dumbledore wanted to die, murdering Dumbledore in front of Harry was something Dumbledore thought would be a good thing for him--something to make Harry nostalgic/reminisce over the good old days when Sirius and his own parents were killed, Snape didn't think that telling Voldemort about the prophecy was going to get Harry and his family killed--he just thought some other shmuck's family was going to get it, and making the right choices are not important to JKR--because she is a liar, someone who doesn't know how to phrase things correctly, and is completely misinformed about what real sadism is. Vivian From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Sep 18 17:02:19 2005 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 18 Sep 2005 17:02:19 -0000 Subject: Reminder - Weekly Chat Message-ID: <1127062939.14.7017.m29@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140410 We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. Weekly Chat Date: Sunday, September 18, 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 rytal at yahoo.co.uk Sun Sep 18 18:16:58 2005 From: rytal at yahoo.co.uk (Auria) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 18:16:58 -0000 Subject: The handwriting in the book (Was: Lily and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140411 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol earlier: > > > First, it's highly unlikely that Lily (or Snape's mother, > suggested by other posters) would invent the curses that Snape claims > as his own, particularly Sectumsempra and its accompanying note, "for > enemies," and the curses are in the same handwriting as the potions > hints. Both appear to be the product of the same ingenious mind, young > Snape's: > > > > Auria responded: > > You are making a huge assumption that everything that Snape wrote in > > his textbook is coming from one source. No-one here seems to have > > considered the fact that MAYBE Snape picked up tips from several > other students, perhaps other books too, as well as making some spells > of his own. > Carol responds: > > Perhaps you've misunderstood me. I didn't say "one source." I said > "the same ingenious mind" (Severus Snape's). > > Since you snipped most of my post, including the canon support, I'll > repeat the key points: 1) The potion tips and the spells are all in > the same handwriting: young Snape's, and 2) Lily would not have helped > to invent Sectumsempra and that the spells in Snape's Potions book are > his own inventions, as he claims. 3) If the spells are his own, the > potion tips are probably his own as well. To me, it's much more likely > that the spells and the potion experiments are the products of the > same experimentally oriented mind than that they're the result of an > uncharacteristic cooperation between a lonely little Slytherin nerd > and a popular Gryffindor "Mudblood." > > None of which is to say that Lily might not also be good at Potions, > but in contrast to the solid evidence in every book of Snape's expert > knowledge, all we have to indicate Lily's skill is Slughorn's fond > memory of a favorite pupil, which may or may not be accurate. > (Slughorn's assessment of Harry's abilities does not speak well of his > judgment in that regard.) He may or may not be correct about Lily, but > even if he is, her abilities are not in themselves an indication that > some of the experiments in the HPB's book could be hers. *That's* an > assumption for which you need to present canon evidence. Frankly, I > would love to see some. (And no, I'm not being rude or sarcastic. I > don't do that.) Auria responds: Carol I think you have delved into my response a bit too deeply (and I had to snip a lot to save space here). I was simply pointing out that I rather liked the idea that in an indirect way, and unknown to him, Harry may in fact be learning potions tips that may have originated from his own mother. Thats all. I have no direct canon evidence of this, other than the explanations given by Slughorn himself. However remember in PoA Lupin does tell Harry that he knew Lily and she was 'a singularly gifted witch'. One thing you wrote ''3) If the spells are his own, the > potion tips are probably his own as well.'' I have to disagree with. This is the major assumption I was referring to. I never said that Snape worked WITH Lily, I meant that he may have written his notes by watching what she did during their classes. He may have taken notes on what other students did as well as make up stuff of his own. In keeping with Snape's character, he would be the spying type - we know that he eavesdropped on Prof Trelawney and Dumbledore that night at the Hogs Head when she made the prophesy. This does not mean he has no talent of his own. Quite the contrary - he seems the type to steal other people's ideas without giving them due credit, as well as experiment with convention, and of course dabble with the dark arts. The sectum sempra curse is his own invention, as he stated. Anyway, this is getting too long a post so I'll stop here. Auria From rytal at yahoo.co.uk Sun Sep 18 18:24:40 2005 From: rytal at yahoo.co.uk (Auria) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 18:24:40 -0000 Subject: Lily and Snape In-Reply-To: <029001c5bbf3$a2f6d6a0$1f9e400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140412 > Magpie wrote: > > Lily could certainly be good at Potions. My own suggestion (that maybe Lily was like Harry in that Slughorn thought Lily was better > at Potions than she was) came into my head only because we're > hearing about Lily's great gift at Potions the same time we're > hearing about Harry's gift for it. But I've got no real reason > at this point to believe that Lily couldn't be just as good at > Potions as Slughorn says she was.(snipped) > Not that I think the conversation is pointless at all. With all > the emphasis put on Lily being good at Potions it does seem like > it's going to go *somewhere*, and a friendship or partnership > between Lily and Snape makes sense. Auria responds: There is a good debate going on in these posts as to whether we beleive that Lily was good at potions or whether Slughorn was over- praising her for whatever reason. One bit of canon evidence that has not yet been given previously is the quote from PoA by Lupin. He did tell Harry that Lily was a 'singularly gifted witch'. That would suggest that Slughorn's appraisal of her is accurate. From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Sep 18 18:40:56 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 18:40:56 -0000 Subject: Sadistic Snape In-Reply-To: <1a8.3f2f866b.305e5df5@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140413 Julie: > I think it's been apparent from the beginning that > Snape formed an immediate opinion of Harry and has > acted on that since, contrary evidence aside. It's > all part of the fact that Snape insists on seeing > Harry as a carbon copy of his father, and twists the > evidence in his mind to support his conclusion. Which > doesn't make him a crank, or a sadist, but a bitter man with > tunnel-vision regarding Harry and James. > Julie: > No, again it's Snape's tunnel vision. houyhnhnm: The character himself, as well as the many discussions about the nature of his character have caused more and more "Snapes" to emerge from my memories and forced me to rethink my relationships with them. That's a good thing, I think. (I am amazed at the number of posters who can only recall *one* such individual from their pasts.) Your comments on tunnel vision brought forth a new Snape from my past, who, I think, illustrates especially well the difference between a sadist and a bully. This person was an assistant principal my first year of teaching and my direct supervisor. He was abusive to me and to students. As a first year teacher I had to be evaluated twice. The first evaluation was terrible. Severus Snape himself couldn't have written anything nastier. I was sure I was going to be driven out of the profession. I considered him a deeply horrible person and a sadist. The thing that turned it around was a school science fair in the spring. This "Admiral Ass" was going to be the judge. I thought what a farce. None of my students are even going to get honorable mention no matter how good their projects are. But he not only judged my students' projects fairly and actually awared a couple of blue ribbons, he gave them exactly the same scores I would have given them. It changed my opinion of him and it changed his opinion of me. It changed his behavior toward me. He ended up giving me a good evaluation and a recommendation for rehire. He told me at the end of the year, "I thought you were cold and didn't care about what your students learned". He had no reason to think that. He couldn't see me at all. His tunnel vision caused him to see his own prejudices rather than people as they really are. He could judge science projects but he couldn't judge people. He probably shouldn't have had the job he held--supervising teachers. He was still a bully, but he was not a sadist because his aim was not to derive pleasure from my pain but to get rid of someone he (incorrectly) perceived as a dunderhead. Out of all the Snape-like characters in my past, this man probably comes the closest to the way I see the character in the books. From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Sun Sep 18 19:59:44 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 19:59:44 -0000 Subject: What did Voldemort want from Lily? Was Re: Voldie's Wand and other details In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140414 > Amiable Dorsai wrote: >Hagrid finds a place to hide (Hogwarts?) for a day while Dumbledore >checks into things, determines that Harry can be protected by his >mother's sacrifice (How does he know this? That's bothered me for >a while.) and prepares to drop Harry at the Dursleys. > Once it gets dark, he sends a message to Hagrid: Meet me at number >four, Privet Drive, Little Whinging, Surrey. > > Saraquel: > I liked your suggestions Amiable Dorsai, but I'm afraid I'll have to > take issue over this one. If Hagrid was hiding Harry at Hogwarts > for the day he would never have flown over Bristol to get to the > Dursleys. Hogwarts is due North and Bristol is due West of Surrey. Amiable Dorsai: Excellent point. So Hagrid hides out somewhere else. See my comment at the very end of this post. Saraquel: > Another option occured to me about using up time. We know that > Voldemort would have let Lily live. This to me indicates that her > living was desirable in some way to Voldemort. That she had some > skill or knowledge that Voldemort could use. > > At that point Voldemort was still short of an immortal body (we know > that from what he says in GoF rebirthing scene about his search for > his immortal body having to wait.) So does Lily know something of > the Philosophers Stone? Was she working on it with DD and Flamel? Amiable Dorsai: I don't know... The problem as I see it is that if Voldemort wanted Lily alive *for some reason important to Voldemort*, it seems to me he would have just stunned her or something. Since PoA, I've been nursing a suspicion that Voldy told Peter that he could have Lily as a reward for his treachery. The offer would have been important to Peter, but I have no trouble seeing Voldemort renege on it as soon as it became inconvenient for him. Since HBP, I've been wondering if Snape fits into this somehow. An awful lot of people have suggested that it was Lily's death that Snape regrets. Anybody have any ideas? Any explanation has to account for the fact that Snape must have been feeding Dumbledore useful information before Lily and James were murdered. Saraquel: > Hence my speculation that Voldemort did not just zap Lily straight > away but probably spent quite some time trying to 'persuade' her to > work for him. I can see him settling himself comfortably and toying > with her in his sadistic way, and Lily resisting. > > In doing this, Voldemort deliberately offered her life, which she > refused. Was this the thing that made her sacrifice the unique one? Amiable Dorsai: I'm beginning to believe this. I used to think that Lily had set something up in advance, and that Dumbledore was in on it. That would explain how he knew that her sacrifice had been made and could therefore be used to protect Harry. But I'm begining to see it this way: Lily, in effect, offered Voldemort a magical contract--kill me, let Harry live. That is, she paid for Harry's life with her own. When Voldemort killed Lily, he accepted the contract. When he then tried to kill Harry, he violated his "agreement", and paid the penalty. The problem with this, is: How does Dumbledore know the contract has been made and violated? Magic leaves traces, could he some how read the traces? Did he deduce it as the only possible explanation for Harry's survival? Did he, as some have suggested, Legilemens Harry or use a Pensieve to sift thruogh his memories? (This has problems. Dumbledore's conversation with Hagrid at Little Whinging seems to imply that this is the first time all day that they've had face-to-face contact. If so, how could Dumbledore have performed such intimate magic on Harry, if Hagrid had charge of Harry all day? Someone else, Moody perhaps, did the deed? That has merit. Maybe Hagrid hid out at Moody's house.) Amiable Dorsai From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 18 20:22:33 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 20:22:33 -0000 Subject: The handwriting in the book (Was: Lily and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140415 Auria wrote: > > One thing you wrote ''3) If the spells are his own, the > > potion tips are probably his own as well.'' I have to disagree > with. This is the major assumption I was referring to. I never said that Snape worked WITH Lily, I meant that he may have written his > notes by watching what she did during their classes. He may have > taken notes on what other students did as well as make up stuff of > his own. In keeping with Snape's character, he would be the spying > type - we know that he eavesdropped on Prof Trelawney and Dumbledore > that night at the Hogs Head when she made the prophesy. > This does not mean he has no talent of his own. Quite the contrary - > he seems the type to steal other people's ideas without giving them > due credit, as well as experiment with convention, and of course > dabble with the dark arts. The sectum sempra curse is his own > invention, as he stated. Carol responds: We have canon evidence that Peter Pettigrew cheated or was trying to cheat on his DADA exam and that Gilderoy Lockhart claimed credit for DADA feats that were not his own. Can you show me any canon evidence of Snape doing something similar? Just because he's good at spying (at least as an adult--he got caught as a young man spying on DD and Trelawney--doesn't mean that he copies other people's notes and tactics. Since he discovered his own spells through experimentation and revision, why should we even question that he did the same with his potions? As for Valky's idea that he has no aesthetic sense, I think that's been pretty well answered by several people who quoted his "simmering cauldron" speech in SS/PS. I could argue (but won't take time here) that his adult persona has been carefully cultivated to gain what he considers to be the respect of his students and that it includes a very careful use of words and movements (sweeping out of doorways)--an appreciation of masculine grace and the color black, for example. I think he likes the *study* of potions as much as he likes the study of the Dark Arts. (Teaching Potions to "dunderheads" who melt their classmates' cauldrons is another matter altogether.) He has a clear mastery of both poisons and antidotes (nice association with the Dark Arts and DADA there), however much the young Severus may recommend stuffing a bezoar down someone's throat--which does not sound to me at all like something our gentle Lily would say, not to mention that it's in Severus's book in his handwriting. (It would be interesting to see Lily's Potions textbook but I don't think that's going to happen.) The book is called "The Half-Blood Prince." We have the irony of Harry learning from the HBP what he never learned from the adult Snape, which would be lost if the notes are not his own. (The bezoar incident is particularly important since Snape quizzes Harry on bezoars in his very first lesson. If it weren't for that lesson, reiterated and remembered through the HBP's sardonic little note, Harry could not have saved Ron from death by poison.) We *know* that the handwriting is young Snape's. We see him crossing out and revising both the spells and the potion instructions, treating both in the same experimental way. Even when Hermione is suggesting that the handwriting looks like a girl's, she never suggests that the altered potions instructions come from a different source than the spells or that they are not the products of the same mind. There is nothing in the narrative to suggest that, either. It's *possible* that Severus's mother encouraged his early talent for potions and hexes, or that his grandfather Prince helped him. (Certainly Tobias the Muggle didn't.) Maybe she lent him her book before he reached NEWT level and he practiced at home with her cauldron and her supervision. But we don't know that. What we do have is spells and potions worked out in the same book and the same handwriting, with crossouts and revisions for both. We also have Snape's established gift for Potions, demonstrated in all the books, mentioned by Slughorn in HBP and tacitly acknowledged by Dumbledore when he offered young Snape the post of Potions master rather than DADA teacher. Why deny or denigrate it? I can see arguing over his personality traits and wheter or not he's evil, but surely his talents and powers are revealed by HBP as even greater than we thought they were? To return to Valky's post for a moment: Why would young Snape suggest adding a peppermint leaf to a Euphoria potion? Maybe because he knew the side effects and didn't want to experience them? Maybe as an intellectual exercise to see what worked? Maybe his mum gave him that particular hint, but there's no canon evidence that she excelled at anything other than gobstones. Maybe he looked across the room and saw Lily adding one or overheard Slughorn praising her for doing so. But considering all the other experimentation that he's doing, it makes just as much sense to take the straightforward approach of assuming that it's as much his own idea as Sectumsempra (which is clearly a retaliation for bullying by "enemies"). Makes me wonder what Severus would have been like if MWPP had left him alone. (And, no, I don't think he was a helpless little victim. MWPP knew he was dangerous or they'd never have sneaked up on him two against one.) I really don't understand why so many posters seem to be trying to suggest that the hints Harry benefits from in NEWT Potions are not the HBP's. We know Snape is a Potions genius. We know he's the HBP. We know, as I've said a dozen times, that the notes are in his handwriting and that the spells are his own inventions. There's no solid evidence that anyone helped him, only Slughorn's statement that Lily was also good at Potions and the discredited idea that the handwriting looks like a girl's. (We *know* it's isn't.) Why give the credit for his Potions improvements to anyone else and spoil the delicious irony of Harry (finally) learning from Snape and of Ron (indirectly) owing Snape his life? Carol, again asking for *solid* canon evidence that the Potions improvements (which appear to have been incorporated into his own Potions classes since Hermione excels in them) are not Snape's own From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Sep 18 20:42:30 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 20:42:30 -0000 Subject: Aesthetics in the Potterverse (Was: Lily and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140416 Dungrollin: > And I think that translating a more efficient way of getting juice > out of a bean into a love of nature is a bit of a stretch. [snip] > And, furthermore, why should a love of nature (if it's a valid > deduction, which I don't think it is) be more obviously ascribable > to Lily than Snape? houyhnhnm: Appreciation of nature is one of the things that has struck me as being absent from the Potterverse, along with art, music and poetry. There don't seem to be any artisans, either, except among the Goblins. Despite the setting of Hogwart's Castle, there are no lyrical descriptions of nature such as one finds in Mary Stewart's Merlin trilogy, for instance. I had assumed this must be due to the author's inability to write such passages or her own lack of interest. However, there has been some discussion recently of the way in which wizards are different from Muggles or Real People, revealed indirectly rather than directly stated, such as their greater physical and emotional resilience. I am wondering now, whether the lack of aesthetic sensibility may not be another way in which wizards are different. Just as "a lot of the greatest wizards haven't got an ounce of logic", perhaps both the ability to create art and the ability to appreciate art or natural beauty are qualities lost in the acquisition of magical powers. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Sep 18 20:59:04 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 20:59:04 -0000 Subject: The handwriting in the book (Was: Lily and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140417 Carol: > I really don't understand why so many posters seem to be trying to > suggest that the hints Harry benefits from in NEWT Potions are not the > HBP's. We know Snape is a Potions genius. We know he's the HBP. We > know, as I've said a dozen times, that the notes are in his > handwriting and that the spells are his own inventions. There's no > solid evidence that anyone helped him, only Slughorn's statement that > Lily was also good at Potions and the discredited idea that the > handwriting looks like a girl's. (We *know* it's isn't.) Why give the > credit for his Potions improvements to anyone else and spoil the > delicious irony of Harry (finally) learning from Snape and of Ron > (indirectly) owing Snape his life? Jen: I believe the text demands the work in the book be Snape's. The relationship being explored in HBP is the Harry/Snape relationship, and the importance of Harry learning from the potion's book what has been difficult for him to learn from Snape in person. The point being Harry *can* learn from Snape. Another big example of how the two are connected is that Dumbledore's trust led both of them to be present on the tower that night, leading to Snape revealing himself as HBP to Harry. More on the Harry/Snape connections starting here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140230 Lily was important in HBP because of her relationship with Slughorn, and how ultimately Slughorn's feelings about Lily led him to give Harry the Horcrux memory. His feelings for Lily may also have influenced his decision to work at Hogwarts, although there's no direct text for that. He was simply talking nostalgically about her with Harry when they meet for the first time. Meaning, I don't think the Lily connection is this book is so much about potions as about Slughorn. Jen From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Sep 18 21:16:25 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 21:16:25 -0000 Subject: Face it, there is a reward for being nice (was Re: Sadistic Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140418 Lupinlore wrote: > It really is tiresome, boring, and often very poorly written. Up > until book 5, these unfortunate weaknesses were largely in abeyance, > covered by periods of humor, fabulously quirky episodes, an overall > sense of wonder, and a sense of confidence that the story was headed > toward a delightful, creative, and well-written climax. However, > unfortunately it appears that near the end of GoF the story > completely jumped the shark and became a ham-handed morality tale > slavishly enthralled to exhausted formulas in which Harry must be > completely alone and unsupported except for a few friends (and, of > course, the love of his life!) and beset at every side by corruption, > incompetence, treachery, evil, and strict boundaries fenced with > thorns and enscribed with the Gospel according to Joseph Campbell - - > because all of that makes him THE HERO, you see. If the seventh book > isn't a spectacular rescue of the series, I suspect in the future a > very prominent theme will be wonder at how four such triumphs (the > first four books) could be followed by three thunderous disasters > (the last three books, if the seventh book doesn't manage to avoid > the trainwreck set in motion by books five and six). Just out of curiosity, why would anyone want to spend literally *years* in discussing something so utterly tedious? For what sin do you undertake this public penance? There must be so many other and more satisfying things to do, books to read, languages to learn. Why punish yourself so much? a_svirn From ragingjess at hotmail.com Sun Sep 18 17:45:18 2005 From: ragingjess at hotmail.com (Jessica Bathurst) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 13:45:18 -0400 Subject: Snape's Potions Abilities and His Relative Maturity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140419 Responses from a few different threads (but oddly, all to Valky. Hi, Valky!): Valky: >There is a definite connection between Snapes fashionable eloquence and his >genius in incantation, but it's a different kettle of fish to >mery, shimmer, and an elegant touch with nature itself. These >things would translate into a well groomed person (nice smelling >potions), with a gentleness about them (removing less pleasant side >effects from the potion), a love and affinity with nature (bean >juicing). I've always thought potions had more in common with chemistry than with any of the creative arts. That's not to say that brewing potions isn't an art (shoots a nervous glance at a glowering Snape), but that it's far more craftsmanlike than, say, DADA. Just as some chefs cook fabulous meals without really appreciating the experience of the food, I think it's perfectly possible that someone with a encyclopedic knowledge of potions could brew something that he'd have no interest in using. I admit to falling in the camp that sees Snape as a pointy-headed intellectual, so I can totally see him finding improvements/alternatives for just about any potion he was assigned to prepare in class, just because he can. (Among his other charming qualities, Snape appears to believe that he is way smarter than the average bear, and I can imagine him feeling quite superior to the textbook writer as he annotates his recipes.) Valky: >While we were on the subject of Snapes sense of humour I wanted to add >a note about the Bezoar. I forgot there so I'll just notch it in here. Just >shove a bezoar down their throats. Cheeky, no? Cheeky was Lily's >style. It's falling in the wrong field of wit to have Sarcastic Snape >behind it. When I first read that part of HBP, what struck me was the crudeness of "just shove a bezoar down their throats." It's so very blunt - like the bedside manner of the poorly socialized laboratory docs that sometimes get stuck doing patient rounds. It didn't read as cheeky at all to me, but I may be alone on that one. It read as the most Snape-like of all of the HBP's notes. vmonte: > If Dumbledore could find it in his heart to forgive Snape, who was a >DEATH EATER (and God knows what he did when he was one), then Snape should >also be as generous with his students. After all, they are just children, >and he is a grown man. You are absolutely right. Snape SHOULD be more charitable towards his students, and to the world at large, because as an adult, he should have the maturity to move beyond his past. Problem is, he's only an adult in the chronological sense - Snape has got what appears to be the most noticeable case of arrested development in the WW this side of Sirius Black. (I could write for days on the parallels between those two, but suffice it to say, if Sirius had been sorted into Slytherin and didn't hate his family, they'd be BFF.) Snape SHOULD behave like an adult to his students, but he doesn't, and I don't think it's a ploy, or sadism, or some sort of evil manifestation of his blackened soul. I think it's fear. I think Snape truly believes that EVERYONE - including eleven-year-olds - is out to make a fool of him, and that the only way he can prevent this is to make them "respect" him. (He's confused "respect" with "fear" here, but that's probably irrelevant to him.) Regardless of any part he may have played in James Potter's death, I think his extreme reaction to Harry stems from a fervent belief that this kid could, if he wanted to, make the entire class think Snape is one big joke. Thus he attacks first, impressing on Harry the folly of ever trying to take on the intimidating, powerful Severus Snape. (There's also no little shortage of jealousy here, but that's another story.) The fact that Harry a) has NO IDEA who this guy is and b) is most emphatically NOT his father never registers with Snape; even after those Occlumency lessons, after finding out about Harry's rough childhood, Snape's first assumption after pulling Harry out of the Penseive is that Harry enjoyed seeing Snape humiliated and is going to tell everyone about it, sniggering as he goes. Snape misses a true chance to make a little peace with Harry because he would rather be hated than laughed at. Being a person who believes that Snape is, at the very least, anti-Voldemort (and probably pro-Dumbledore), I find it fascinating that a person like that - emotiionally stunted, bitter, immature - would volunteer to be a spy for the good guys, to work with the Order to bring down someone he must have once believed in. What makes horrible Snape fall in with people he hates, or who hate him? I think it's far more interesting to speculate on why this schmuck is so trusted by Dumbledore, than to assume that he is not a schmuck at all. I love this character. Of course, if he turns out to be a true bad guy, he'll be a lot less interesting to think about. *sigh* Yours, Jessica (who is a bit of a schmuck herself, and thus an authority on schmuckiness) From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sun Sep 18 17:02:57 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 17:02:57 -0000 Subject: Sadistic Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140420 vmonte wrote: "You just comfirmed what I've been saying about Snape. He behaves inappropriately" Del replies: Inappropriately according to your rules and mine, but not necessarily according to his own rules. He has absolutely no obligation to adopt our rules, you know. vmonte wrote: "because he does not feel bound to do the right thing, " Del replies: Not necessarily. First, it's not certain we and he agree on what "the right thing" is. As I said, the vendetta is the right thing to do in some circles. Second, not every moral system states that one should always try and do "the right thing", whatever it is. And third, there's the very tricky matter of "exceptions": when do we depart from our general rules? Different people have different ideas of what exceptions are acceptable. vmonte wrote: "he has not learned the appropriate standards of conduct from Dumbledore," Del replies: You're using the word "appropriate" yet again, even though you haven't demonstrated that your morality is inherently better than Snape's. You argue that Snape should have learned to act like DD, I ask why. In the absence of a High Ruler who makes the rules, everyone is free to make their own rules, and nobody has to conform to anybody else's rules. If one breaks the law, then one can be legally punished, but that's about it. If Snape doesn't want to adopt DD's morality, that's his right. vmonte wrote: "he has a vendetta against a dead man," Del replies: A very classic situation in RL. vmonte wrote: "he's emotionally arrested," Del replies: Not entirely his fault, is it? vmonte wrote: "and it is not certain whether he ever had an ephiphany. " Del replies: I personally don't buy at face value DD's explanation about Snape having a deep remorse. Snape hated James personally, he apparently had no respect for Muggle-born Lily, so in the absence of more explanation, I believe that DD twisted words once again, and that Snape's remorse was not exactly the kind of remorse we could hope for. vmonte wrote: "In short, he has behaved like a deeply horrible and sadistic person." Del replies: Deeply horrible, yes, but that's his right. Sadistic, I don't know. I personally think that even though Snape has sadistic tendencies, like most of us, he doesn't actually thrive on them, so he's not sadistic per se. JMO, of course. vmonte wrote: "But it's all an act right? But he is still good right?" Del replies: Are you taking me for a Snapologist? Because I'm not. I personally believe that Snape has been genuinely horrible, but I claim his right to be so if he wants to. I also believe that a horrible person can be on the side of Good technically. Snape might not fight on the side of Good for moral reasons, but he might very well have technical reasons for doing so. Being a horrible person doesn't preclude fighting for a morally good cause, IMO, even if he doesn't fight for it because it's a good cause. vmonte wrote: "But he cannot help his actions because he is a vampire," Del replies: He's not :-) vmonte wrote: "he is cursed by the DADA curse," Del replies: Even if he is, that's his own fault: he didn't have to apply for the job. vmonte wrote: "Harry is the real bad guy, those brats deserve to be put in their place," Del replies: No, LV is the real bad guy, but the kids are no saints either, and they do make stupid moves sometimes. vmonte wrote: "the unbreakable vow wasn't really unbreakable/and or it was," Del replies: Lol! Well, it IS one or the other, isn't it ;-) ? vmonte wrote: "he had no choice but to kill Dumbledore, Dumbledore was too weak to be much use anyway, Dumbledore wanted to die, murdering Dumbledore in front of Harry was something Dumbledore thought would be a good thing for him--something to make Harry nostalgic/reminisce over the good old days when Sirius and his own parents were killed," Del replies: I personally have no opinion of what went on on the Tower. I know what we saw, but I also know that we cannot 100% trust what we saw (as in: who killed those Muggles? Peter or Sirius?) and I don't know what the motives for both Snape and DD were. In short, there's way too much I don't know for me to pass a judgement. vmonte wrote: "Snape didn't think that telling Voldemort about the prophecy was going to get Harry and his family killed-- he just thought some other shmuck's family was going to get it," Del replies: I just posted a theory that Snape was absolutely convinced that the Prophecy was about Neville :-) vmonte wrote: "and making the right choices are not important to JKR--" Del replies: Yes it is. But I think JKR also knows that "the right choices" doesn't necessarily have the same meaning for every one of her characters. vmonte wrote: "because she is a liar," Del replies: I don't think she's a liar. But I do remember that her work is still in progress, so she's bound to try and cover some things as much as possible, especially if she has planned some very bangy things in Book 7. vmonte wrote: "someone who doesn't know how to phrase things correctly," Del replies: I personally believe that she very carefully phrases things in her books. But that doesn't mean that she is as careful during the interviews. The written form and the oral form are two very different beasts. Just because someone masters one of them doesn't in any way mean that they have as good a grip on the other. vmonte wrote: "and is completely misinformed about what real sadism is. " Del replies: Oh no she's not! She created Umbridge... Personally I understand those who try and defend Snape, because that's where the challenge is, that's where the fun is. Arguing that Snape is bad is boring IMO, because it's way too obvious, way too easy. Snape is a horrible person, so it takes a very little step to make him evil too. While figuring out how to reconcile his horribleness (?) with his working for the Good is much more challenging and fun IMO. We have only a few years before Book 7. If people want to have fun with the many extremely ambiguous clues about Snape that JKR planted throughout the series, it's *now or never*. There's a high risk that the Snape Mistery will be over after Book 7, so it will be too late then to discuss that matter. So I say "live and let live" :-) Let the Snapologists have fun! Let them push the limits of the canon. Chances are that they will even uncover interesting things in the process, and they force us to rethink our assumptions, our preconceived ideas. So what's the hurt in it? They might be "wrong" by your standards ;-), but as long as they respect the rules of engagement on this list, they have a right to defend their favourite Potion/DADA teacher as much as they want :-) JMO, of course. Del From puritybrown at gmail.com Sun Sep 18 21:19:11 2005 From: puritybrown at gmail.com (Katherine Farmar) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 22:19:11 +0100 Subject: Why are wizards so incompetent? (Was Face it, there is a reward for being nice (was Re: Sadistic Snape)) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20050918181647.01de4d00@pop.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140421 Pippin: > > > > It distances us from the characters a little, yes. But that's > > JKR being post-modern again. Just because something would make > > the story more affecting doesn't mean it's true. Think of all the > > little kids who were disappointed that Snape wasn't the villain in > > SS/PS. Snape makes a much more satisfactory villain than > > Quirrell or Voldemort, but it doesn't mean that's what he is. > > Lupinlore: >Postmodern? By some definitions of the term, yes. Perhaps JKR even >intends it that way. But I think it (the distancing effect by which >we often find ourselves unable to sympathize with the characters and >feeling contempt for Hogwarts) is much more likely to just be poor >writing and bad characterization. Let's face it, JKR is often ham- >fisted beyond belief and deeply enslaved to exhausted and boring >formulas about heroes and their journeys. In fact, I think what JKR is really trying to do is emphasize her >moral story (concerning which I don't think she has a "postmodern" >thought in her head by almost any common definition of the term) by >doing everything in her power to emphasize how "heroic" Harry and his >friends are. That means surrounding them with incompetent and >corrupt adults, or no adults at all. And thus her writing is >sometimes ham-fisted and her characterization so unbelievable as to >jar you right out of the narrative. Why has Harry lost all his >father figures? To emphasize how heroic he is. Why is the wizarding >world corrupt? To emphasize how morally heroic Harry and his friends >are. Why does no one pay attention to Harry's emotional and, often, >even his physical hurts? To emphasize how heroic he is. Why is >Hogwarts such a poorly run school filled with such poor and/or >abusive teachers? To emphasize how heroic Harry is. > if emphasizing the >shining quality of that moral purity means making the Wizarding World >look like a repellant and unbelievable cesspool, then so much the >worse for the Wizarding World. > >It really is tiresome, boring, and often very poorly written. Hey, don't hold back there, Lupinlore, tell us what you really feel. ;-) Joking aside, the incompetence of many of the adults of the WW is a problem in the series. The corruption I don't have a problem with; it strikes me as pretty realistic, actually, especially given that the WW is a small, insular, inbred community where everyone knows (or at least knows of) everyone else. Cronyism and backhanders flourish in that kind of environment. When the person you're supposed to fine or punish or fail at their exams is your drinking buddy's son, your niece's boyfriend, *and* your boss's cousin, rather than some randomite, it's much easier to look the other way and justify this to yourself -- cos, hey, you *know* this kid, and you *know* he's basically all right, right? It's not going to do any harm this once, right? But that kind of exception-making can become corrosive when everybody's doing it, and in a small enough community, everyone *will* do it once the precedent's been set. You can't be too nasty to people you depend on, or people you need to interact with every day. As a result, certain restraints on antisocial behaviour are eroded. (For an extreme real-life example of this kind of process, see Pitcairn Island. Whatever the faults of the WW, it's not as bad as *that*.) The incompetence, though... yeah, that's a problem. To a certain extent you can hand-wave it away; John Schilling remarked on rec.arts.sf.written that "the Wizarding world is noticeably backwards in its approach to, well, just about everything that isn't Wizardry. Which is actually plausible, given how useful Wizardry seems to be for lots of things the rest of us have had to resort to Extreme Cleverness for." In other words: they don't need to be smart, they can do magic! Cop-out, I know, but it works if you don't push it too far. The Knight Bus doesn't need to be driven by someone who actually knows the rules of the road, since it magically avoids all obstacles. Wizards generally can afford to be a bit sloppy with their concealment, because if a Muggle sees something suspicious they can be memory-charmed. But push it too far, and this explanation starts to crack. It doesn't explain why Voldemort hasn't read the Evil Overlord List (*this* is the guy that had the wizarding world living in utter terror for eleven years?). The ability to understand and account for human motivations and the ability to plan your way out of a wet paper bag are *not* things that magic can substitute for. So as far as that's concerned, yes, I chalk it up to incompetent writing. I think there's a specific reason why the writing falls down here, though; it's the combination of several different genres of writing with aims that are sometimes at cross-purposes and tend to interfere with each other. It's a convention of children's adventure stories that adults are either absent or irrelevant for most of the story, because otherwise the kids aren't going to be having adventures. And that's fine if your story is *just* a children's adventure story -- it's not necessarily believable in itself, but it's the price of admission, and if the reader is willing to read a children's adventure story, they'll be willing to suspend disbelief to that extent. But HP is not just a children's adventure story. It's got elements of mystery, supernatural horror, and didactic satire, each of which come along with their own baggage, their own conventions and expectations, and their own little admission-charges that we have to pay if our belief is to remain suspended. With each extra generic convention, the likelihood that the author's going to cut corners increases; and Rowling does cut corners, chiefly by having people act like idiots. I don't think it's *just* a matter of making Harry look good -- and, honestly, if that's the object she's failing miserably; I'm re-reading OotP at the moment and I want to smack Harry for being so nasty to Dudley -- granted, it's *Dudley* he's being nasty to, and part of the nastiness is calling Dudley out on the bullying he's been doing, but mostly Harry's just taking out his frustrations on the nearest available target, which is not remotely fair and isn't going to make things better for anyone, least of all Harry (and that was a tangent, but it struck me quite forcibly when I was reading it). It's mostly a matter of the difficult balancing act between didactic satire and children's adventure story. The satire is aimed at adult institutions and prejudices, but the main character is a child/adolescent; he has to be effective for the story to be satisfying, but for him to be effective *at all* he's *bound* to make the adults look bad, because they're *adults* and he's a *kid* and he's *running rings round them*. And this is a problem, because the author is asking us to take the WW seriously as a mirror of our society, so that we can draw lessons from it -- that's what satire does -- but would a kid be able to do that in our society? Probably not, unless the adults he was surrounded with were all idiots. Maybe it's possible to balance these two sets of expectations and conventions some other way; if so, Rowling hasn't figured it out and has defaulted to "Idiot World". And I believe that's where we came in... Katherine From oppen at mycns.net Sun Sep 18 22:41:39 2005 From: oppen at mycns.net (ericoppen) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 22:41:39 -0000 Subject: Facilis descensus Averni---Snape's little problems Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140422 It occurs to me that a big part of what ails Snape is that he's been mixed up with the Dark Arts for so long. In many (most? I am no scholar of the occult) magical and magickal traditions, those who palter with evil for easy power pay a price. While the power comes easily, much more easily than it does on the "good" side of things, there are always side-effects, and nasty ones. Forex, the classical "deal with the Devil" a la Faust offered whatever one's greasy little heart could desire---the only little catch was that when the time came, you were bound for Hell for sure, by your own will and signed request. Or in Tolkien, the Great Rings made with Sauron's might (the Seven Dwarven Rings and the Nine for Mortal Men) offered their wearers great power, but at the price of being susceptible to Sauron's wiles. And as for the One---yes, it gave power, but at a price no- one sane would pay. Nobody even remotely sane would want to trade places with Gollum, which was the fate of any mortal who tried to use the One. The Great and Good could master its power, but its nature was such that they would inevitably become evil themselves. So, does this apply to JKR's "Dark Arts?" I would say that it does. Look at Voldemort---he was once handsome as a young god, and a powerful wizard, but his magical experiments altered him horribly, and although he survives, he does so in a form that nobody could love. Which brings us to everybody's favorite puzzle character, Severus Snape. We are informed that he knew more "curses" when he got to Hogwarts than many seventh-year students---what does this tell us about the sort of magic he had been swotting up on his own? Not to mention the ones he invented---the one Harry used on Malfoy, forex. _Not_ nice magic at all. One reason that I think D'dore kept Snape away from DADA, even though he's a stone expert, is because in JKR's world, the Dark Arts are not only corrupting to the body and soul, they're _addictive._ Snape might be like a dried-out alcoholic, who's okay as long as he doesn't start drinking again. But if he fiddles with Dark Arts, even in passing, he's already done himself enough damage for them to be much more dangerous than they might be for someone who'd never had anything to do with them. Would the Big V have been able to put a curse on the Herbology professor's job, or the Astronomy professor's? Maybe not, or at least not as easily. Comments, anyone? From juli17 at aol.com Sun Sep 18 23:23:09 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 19:23:09 EDT Subject: Why DD trusts Snape, Pettigrew and GH Message-ID: <1df.43e4c0ee.305f50dd@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140423 Saraquel: Rather than turf Pettigrew out, DD and Snape now have a cover for Snape, they can feed deliberate misinformation through Pettigrew and real but harmless information through Snape, if necessary. I'm not quite sure at what point Snape started to openly work at Hogwarts or as a 'spy' for Voldemort. If Voldemort starts to suspect a double agent, he will go for Pettigrew rather than Snape, or Snape can finger Pettigrew to Voldemort to get himself off the hook, pointing out that the information he has been feeding him is bogus. At some point later on, Pettigrew is made secret keeper by Sirius. As far as DD and Snape were aware, Sirius was the Potter's secret keeper, and according to how the Fidelius Charm works, even if Pettigrew had known the secret he would not have been able to blab it to Voldemort. Therefore neither DD nor Snape would not have suspected Pettigrew until Sirius turned up in PoA. And finally, now for the bangy bit -Why does DD not want to tell Harry this information ? because DD and Snape kept Pettigrew in the Order, even though they knew he was a spy for Voldemort and they did not let Sirius into the loop. One of DD's huger mistakes I think. How does that sound? Saraquel Julie says: It's hard for me to believe Dumbledore wouldn't at least find it suspect that *two* of the four marauders had turned out to be traitors, and that he wouldn't investigate Sirius's alleged guilt much more deeply than he did (if he knew Pettigrew was a spy). You'd also think this fact would bring about a passing thought to Dumbledore's mind that Pettigrew could have manipulated or otherwise gained access to the Secret Keeper role. In which case Dumbledore deliberately let good people suffer and die for his *plan*, making him Puppermaster Extreme. I also think Snape would have shown some reaction (if only one of his signature twitches) to the revelation that Peter was the Secret Keeper--unless he's an amazing actor who can pretend he never knew anything about Peter's real character while simultaneously expressing an impassioned glee that Sirius was about to pay for his crimes. (I don't think he's that good an actor when expressing emotions are involved, only when the acting involves *hiding* his feelings.) If your theory is true, I do agree Dumbledore certainly wouldn't want to tell Harry that he didn't have Pettigrew immediately arrested and remitted to Azkaban, or that he allowed Sirius to rot in Azkaban when his guilt was doubtful. It hardly bears thinking how angry Harry would be if he knew how much a hand Dumbledore had in his parents' death and his godfather's twelve years of misery. Forgiving Snape would be child's play next to forgiving Dumbledore. Which, I admit, is part of my reason for not buying this theory. I do believe Dumbledore makes mistakes, some of them big, but I don't think he would sacrifice innocent people just to assure the success of any plan, even one to save the WW. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puritybrown at gmail.com Sun Sep 18 21:15:30 2005 From: puritybrown at gmail.com (Katherine Farmar) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 22:15:30 +0100 Subject: Aesthetics in the Potterverse (Was: Lily and Snape) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20050918215028.01e5eff0@pop.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140424 >houyhnhnm: >Just as "a lot of the greatest wizards haven't got an ounce of logic", >perhaps both the ability to create art and the ability to appreciate >art or natural beauty are qualities lost in the acquisition of magical >powers. Well, I suppose *somebody* had to paint all those talking portraits... Though the most irritating example of this aesthetic blindness has to be the school song in PS. Good Lord, Dumbledore, if you really think music is "a magic beyond all we do here", then having several hundred people sing a doggerel verse to several hundred different tunes simultaneously is not the best way to demonstrate it! Can you imagine what a godawful cacophany that would make? I'm inclined to think it's nothing terribly significant, though, just a matter of authorial priorities. 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? I doubt it. I think JKR just likes indulging her own broad sense of humour. Likewise with aesthetics. She's just not that interested in writing about beautiful things, or about people appreciating beauty, or about art. It has the odd effect of making the WW seem very uncultured and rather flat. Nobody reads novels! Nobody sings, except to cheer on or discourage a Quidditch team! Likewise with visual art -- Dean is "good at drawing", but we only find out about this when he draws a banner for Gryffindor. Does he sketch portraits of his housemates in his spare time? Maybe, but we'll never know because JKR doesn't care enough to tell us. -- Katherine F. aka puritybrown -So then, Ben, it seems every track on the EP involves death, drunkenness, desperate poverty, diabolical dealings, incest, murder, and abandonment. Does this reflect your current state of mind? -Well, you know, I have days. (Half Man Half Biscuit, "Used To Be In Evil Gazebo") [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 00:44:20 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:44:20 -0000 Subject: Why DD trusts Snape, Pettigrew and GH In-Reply-To: <1df.43e4c0ee.305f50dd@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140425 >I wrote: >But, what does Snape know that is >almost guaranteed to persuade DD that he has changed sides ? he >knows that Pettigrew is a spy for Voldemort. I speculate that this >is the reason why DD really trusts Snape, because he shopped >Pettigrew. Saraquel now: (Julie posted her message after I started this post and the answer to it is further down) Well, as no-one has taken up my suggestion about DD, Snape and Pettigrew overnight I will now have to do all the hard work myself. (Sticks out bottom lip and huffily attacks the keyboard :-) ) IMO, the biggest problem for the theory is why DD did not suspect Pettigrew of shopping the Potters. DD thought that Sirius was the Secret Keeper, therefore, his first reaction must have been to suspect that Sirius told Voldemort. However, if Snape knew that Pettigrew was a spy, it is unlikely that he would not `know' that Sirius was one. (*We* know Sirius was loyal, but I'm talking about what DD and Snape would have thought at the time.) So what conclusion did DD and Snape come to at the time? Pettigrew is thought to be dead and Sirius is whisked off to Azkaban without trial. DD did not go and visit Sirius to get the real story, which implies, in terms of this theory, that he just believed either, that there were two spies or that Snape was wrong about who the spy was. For the theory to work, it has to be the former. If DD thought Snape had shopped him the wrong guy, then bye-bye Snape as a double-agent for Voldemort. So that would mean that Snape had to have given DD some pretty firm evidence about Pettigrew, and that DD believed him completely. For Dumbledore to trust Snape over Sirius would be a big step. We know however, that DD wanted to be the Potter's secret keeper himself. Was this because he had his doubts about Sirius already? Which leads me to, what was happening with the Marauders ? there certainly seems to have been something rotten in the State of Denmark for all of them to be suspecting each other of being a spy. But I digress, I don't think I can fathom the depths of that one, but suspect it might have arisen during the defied-him-thrice episodes. (Why does that always make me think of cocks crowing ? so close, but so opposite :-) ) If DD did have doubts about Sirius, even though they can't have been backed up by evidence from Snape, then perhaps he just did assume that Sirius had shopped the Potter's. Although Snape can't have provided evidence to DD, he would probably have loved backing up this assumption with every "it's certainly possible" that he could conceivably muster. As long as DD thought Sirius was the secret keeper, then he could not suspect Pettigrew because of the Fidelius charm not allowing (in DD's mind)Pettigrew to spill the beans to Voldemort. It makes one think (my theory being right or not has no bearing on this point)that Sirius actually lied to DD, as Valky has suggested, such that DD was *totally convinced* that Sirius was the Secret Keeper. Ahh, Julie has just replied to my original post, and has brought up the exact point that I'm discussing here. So take the above as a possible reply ? although I'm far from being certain about this theory, I would like to give it a good chance as I think it warrants detailed thinking. I think the following comments need to be addressed specifically: >Julie wrote: >I also think Snape would have shown some reaction (if >only one of his signature twitches) to the revelation that Peter was >the Secret Keeper--unless he's an amazing actor who can pretend he >never knew anything about Peter's real character while >simultaneously >expressing an impassioned glee that Sirius was about to pay for his >crimes. (I don't think he's that good an actor when expressing >emotions are involved, only when the acting involves *hiding* his >feelings.) Saraquel: Snape actually knows nothing new about the story of Sirius, Pettigrew and the Potters at the end of PoA. He arrived in the shrieking shack to hear about the prank. He does not hear at that point, that Pettigrew was the secret keeper. Sirius agrees to go up to the castle if Snape takes the rat, he urges Snape to look at the rat (UK ed p264), but Snape doesn't listen. Snape was then hexed by the trio before the real explanation. He doesn't come to until after Pettigrew has escaped again. DD spoke to Sirius alone and then went to Harry and Hermione, I don't think he spoke to Snape. Therefore, when Snape goes ballistic at the end of PoA, it is because he does not yet know that Pettigrew is guilty and believes that Sirius has got away with it. >Julie wrote: >It hardly bears thinking >how angry Harry would be if he knew how much a hand Dumbledore >had in his parents' death and his godfather's twelve years of >misery. >Forgiving Snape would be child's play next to forgiving Dumbledore. > >Which, I admit, is part of my reason for not buying this theory. I >do believe Dumbledore makes mistakes, some of them big, but I >don't think he would sacrifice innocent people just to assure >the success of any plan, even one to save the WW. Saraquel: Indeed, I agree, forgiving DD would be the challenge, which, contrary to you, is why I think that theory might have a possibility of being right. To me JKR is continuing to ratchet up the tension, making the obstacles which Harry has to surmount in making the right choice over the easy choice, increasingly hard. This one would actually be the hardest of all, the greatest test. I want to take up the point about DD sacrificing innocent people. When DD continued to exploit Pettigrew, he really did not know that Lily and James were likely to be in danger from Pettigrew. DD really wanted to be their secret keeper, but was unable to persuade them, but probably backed down when Sirius was suggested by them. He did not sacrifice them for a plan, more, that in wartime everything is a risk, and he did not expect this risk to have such an horrific outcome. After PoA, during the whole of GoF, DD steers clear of Harry. He tells him that the problem was legilimency, which is a factor. But that he cannot look Harry in the eye is not surprising ? he would be feeling unbearable guilt. Does this shed light on the other memories that Snape put in the pensieve, his memories of telling DD about Pettigrew? Does it also offer an explanation for the Tower Scene. DD was slowly telling Harry the whole truth. He knew that he would have to tell Harry about this awful secret in the end, and he knew that once he did so, he would no longer be able to act as his mentor. It was important to keep Harry ignorant of what happened until he had prepared him as fully as he possibly could. Also, he would feel even more pressure that Harry must stay alive ? to have Harry die because of another of his mistakes, would be unbearable. So when Snape appears on the battlements, what is in DD's mind. Snape, keep Harry alive at all costs. You know that in the end Harry won't trust me when I tell him the truth. Kill me and get the DEs out of here, before they discover him under the invisibility cloak. I've always thought that the argument in the forest between DD and Snape was about Pettigrew ? that DD's reference to `your house', meant Spinners End not Slytherin. Is there something that DD suspects Petigrew knows? Having Pettigrew in his house must be doubly awful for Snape. Can't make any more sense out this at the moment though. OK, enough rambling, and Saraquel realises that this theory gives us an indisputable DDM!Snape - even though he is evil and nasty! Saraquel From lealess at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 01:07:09 2005 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 01:07:09 -0000 Subject: Facilis descensus Averni---Snape's little problems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140426 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ericoppen" wrote: > It occurs to me that a big part of what ails Snape is that he's > been mixed up with the Dark Arts for so long. In many (most? I am no > scholar of the occult) magical and magickal traditions, those who > palter with evil for easy power pay a price. While the power comes > easily, much more easily than it does on the "good" side of things, > there are always side-effects, and nasty ones. > > --SNIP of interesting stuff-- > > One reason that I think D'dore kept Snape away from DADA, though > he's a stone expert, is because in JKR's world, Dark Arts are not > only corrupting to the body and soul, they're _addictive._ Snape > might be like a dried-out alcoholic, who's okay as long as he > doesn't start drinking again. But if he fiddles with Dark Arts, > even in passing, he's already done himself enough damage for them > to be much more dangerous than they might be for someone who'd > never had anything to do with them. > --More SNIPPAGE-- I can see the attraction of this argument, as it echoes what Rowling said herself, that the DADA position would bring out the worst in Snape (although I think she was being tongue-in-cheek). But this is also like saying firefighters work in their professions because they like to start fires, pharmacists because they want to mess around with drugs, psychiatrists because they're screwed up, and so on. There may be kernel of truth for some professionals, but not for all. Do you think Lupin was corrupted because of his year teaching DADA, or would have been had he continued teaching it? He had as much experience *being* a Dark Creature as Snape had with Dark Arts. Had the real Moody taught DADA, would he have been corrupted? He had the experience of fighting the Dark Arts, seemingly using its own methods. I rather look at Snape, at least in potions, as a scientist. He might bring that same perspective to the Dark Arts, perhaps a value-free perspective, or a practical one. He may also have become the firefighter who saves lives by fighting them instead of taking them by starting fires. Unfortunately, we saw little of Snape teaching DADA, so we don't know what effect teaching the class had on him. He didn't seem overly preoccupied with Dark Arts when we did see him, however. He had more pressing things on his mind. lealess From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 01:24:27 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 01:24:27 -0000 Subject: Facilis descensus Averni---Snape's little problems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140427 Ericoppen wrote: > One reason that I think D'dore kept Snape away from DADA, even though > he's a stone expert, is because in JKR's world, the Dark Arts are not > only corrupting to the body and soul, they're _addictive._ Snape > might be like a dried-out alcoholic, who's okay as long as he doesn't > start drinking again. But if he fiddles with Dark Arts, even in > passing, he's already done himself enough damage for them to be much > more dangerous than they might be for someone who'd never had > anything to do with them. Alla: My only comment would be complete agreement, actually. This is also one of the reasons why I have so much trouble believing that Dumbledore would ask Snape to kill him - suddenly all the fighting for Snape's soul, fighting to keep him clean from Dark Arts is deemed irellevant, IMO. Lealess: > I can see the attraction of this argument, as it echoes what Rowling > said herself, that the DADA position would bring out the worst in > Snape (although I think she was being tongue-in-cheek). Alla: I think JKR was being honest when she said that - I don't think this is a complete story, but I think this part is true. JMO, of course. Is there any reason that you are saying that she was joking? Lealess: But this is > also like saying firefighters work in their professions because they > like to start fires, pharmacists because they want to mess around with > drugs, psychiatrists because they're screwed up, and so on. There may > be kernel of truth for some professionals, but not for all. Do you > think Lupin was corrupted because of his year teaching DADA, or would > have been had he continued teaching it? He had as much experience > *being* a Dark Creature as Snape had with Dark Arts. Had the real > Moody taught DADA, would he have been corrupted? He had the > experience of fighting the Dark Arts, seemingly using its own methods. > Alla: I think your analogy is flawed. The big difference between Lupin, Moody AND Snape on the other hand would be that they had no attractions to Dark Arts in the first place, as far as we know. They were teaching or in Moody case would be teaching the Defence against Dark Arts. They as far as we know never meddled in Dark Arts itself - Snape DID. He was part of the DE, after all. I think that Lupin and Real!Moody would have much less or none at all danger to be addicted to Dark Arts,since all they would be teaching are ANTIDOTES, so to speak to Dark Arts. Now, of course they have to know some Dark Arts in order to teach defence correctly, I suppose. But I think there is a big difference of learning something in order to know how to defend it, OR already LOVING Dark Arts as much as Snape did ( and we know that he invents those dark curses, as teen) and then getting the position,where he can be able to enjoy them again, even though he is supposed to teach defence. Again JMO of course, Alla. From gerald_zinck at yahoo.ca Mon Sep 19 00:18:19 2005 From: gerald_zinck at yahoo.ca (gerald_zinck) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:18:19 -0000 Subject: Dursley Redemption? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140428 I've been reading for a while through someone else's account and just got my own today. One thing that I've always wondered is what people think about some type of redemption for the Dursleys. They've always been portrayed in such a bad light, but in the last book, does anyone else think that they may play some sort of good role in the end? Specifically, I'm hoping to see a turn around for Petunia. Sure she may not have liked that her sister was a witch and that her nephew is a wizard, but blood is still thicker than water. We also do not know what Dumbledore has told her to do. When you think about it, all the adversity at the Dursley's house has made Harry into the person he is now. Was she actually acting the whole time? I don't think so. I can't see her keeping that up for so long, but what if that's something that Dumbledore told her to do? To keep things a bit tough for Harry so he wouldn't grow up being soft and she went over the top? Maybe she really did worry about him and didn't want the same thing to happen to him as happened to his parents? I'm really looking forward to seeing what the Dursleys do in book seven and hope that they don't wind up being throwaway characters. Gerald From lizabet612 at aol.com Mon Sep 19 01:36:49 2005 From: lizabet612 at aol.com (lizabet612 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 21:36:49 EDT Subject: Facilis descensus Averni---Snape's little problems Message-ID: <99.66f2d05b.305f7031@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140429 Hi This is my 2nd post so I'm threading gently.... My biggest issue with Snape being like an alcoholic with the Dark Arts is that Dumbledore seemed to understand this, hence kept Snape away from Teaching DADA. Snape even alludes to this in Spinners End. What troubles me is what possibly happened over the summer to Dumbledore to allow Snape to teach DADA. I think this is an intentional misdirection of plot of JKRs and supports a part of the story we are not aware of. -liz From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 00:49:21 2005 From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:49:21 -0000 Subject: Lily and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140430 > Auria wrote: > There is a good debate going on in these posts as to whether we > beleive that Lily was good at potions or whether Slughorn was over- > praising her for whatever reason. One bit of canon evidence that has > not yet been given previously is the quote from PoA by Lupin. He did > tell Harry that Lily was a 'singularly gifted witch'. That would > suggest that Slughorn's appraisal of her is accurate. Lyra remains out of the main debate here but notes that Lupin's quote, while a lovely sentiment, was never spoken by Lupin in the book; it was instead penned by the screenwriter of the film version. Lyra. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 02:22:26 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 02:22:26 -0000 Subject: Dursley Redemption? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140431 Gerald: > Specifically, I'm hoping to see a turn around for Petunia. Sure she > may not have liked that her sister was a witch and that her nephew is > a wizard, but blood is still thicker than water. We also do not know > what Dumbledore has told her to do. When you think about it, all the > adversity at the Dursley's house has made Harry into the person he is > now. Was she actually acting the whole time? I don't think so. I can't > see her keeping that up for so long, but what if that's something that > Dumbledore told her to do? To keep things a bit tough for Harry so he > wouldn't grow up being soft and she went over the top? Maybe she > really did worry about him and didn't want the same thing to happen to > him as happened to his parents? > > I'm really looking forward to seeing what the Dursleys do in book > seven and hope that they don't wind up being throwaway characters. Alla: Welcome, Gerald! I am not sure I agree with you that Petunia was acting at all, and especially on Dumbledore's orders. It makes the whole Dumbledore speech when he comes to Dursleys to take Harry away to be a lie and I don't see Dumbledore as a lier. I can definitely see your argument if you see him as a Puppetmaster! Dumbledore, of course. But personally I doubt it. JMO, of course. "Dumbledore paused, and although his voice remained light and calm, and he gave no obvious sign of anger, Harry felt a kind of chill emanating from him and noticed that Dursleys drew very slightly closer together. "You did not do as I asked . You have never treated Harry as a son. he has known nothing but neglect and often cruelty at your hands. The best that can be said is that he has at least escaped the appaling damage you have inflicted upon the unfortunate boy sitting between you." - HBP, p.55 I think Dumbledore is being sincere here, personally. Now, does it forecloses the redemption of Petunia? No, unfortunately it does not, IMO. I am saying "unfortunately" only because of what I think about Dursleys. :-) I am so not a fan of them, in fact if they were to die slow and painful death, I could care less, BUT there is that little sentence in OOP when Harry sees for the first time that Petunia looks like his mother's sister ( paraphrase) and there is of course Dumbledore saying "however miserable he has been here, however unwelcome, however badly treated, you have at least, grudgingly allowed him protection" - HBP, p.55. So, maybe Petunia would be sort of redeemed, because she did something good for Harry, but giving him protection is the ONLY good I can see that she did. Before HBP) came out, I used to think that maybe even protection was not worth those ten years of misery Harry encountered. I can see Petunia changing a little bit because she sees Harry for who he is and appreciating him and maybe feeling remorse for what she did, but I absolutely don't see her getting any kind of reward moral or otherwise for her treatment of Harry while in her care. Personally I was delighted when JKR made Dumbledore say that Harry suffered " neglect and cruelty" while at Dursleys care. To me his speech in OOP surely did not cut it. Just me of course. Alla From grega126 at aol.com Mon Sep 19 02:40:51 2005 From: grega126 at aol.com (greg_a126) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 02:40:51 -0000 Subject: Voldemort and July 31st Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140432 >From HBP, "The magic I evoked fifteen years ago means that Harry has powerful protection while he can still call this house 'home." However miserable he has been here, however unwelcome, however badly treated, you have at least, grudgingly, allowed him houseroom. This magic will cease to operate the moment that Harry turns seventeen..." pp56-57. Now, we know from GoF that Voldemort has some of this protection inside him as well. So we know that Harry is going to be without this protection on his birthday, which means had Voldemort chosen someone else, he would've been free to touch Harry as of his birthday. However, he did choose Harry. So is this decision going to have some negative consequence for Voldemort on Harry's Birthday? Is this finally the answer to the "gleam of triumph" in DD's eyes? Voldemort's decision to use Harry finally shows the consequences 3 years later. Greg From Nanagose at aol.com Mon Sep 19 02:54:13 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 02:54:13 -0000 Subject: Facilis descensus Averni---Snape's little problems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140433 > Ericoppen wrote: > One reason that I think D'dore kept Snape away from DADA, even > though he's a stone expert, is because in JKR's world, the Dark Arts > are not only corrupting to the body and soul, they're _addictive._ > Snape might be like a dried-out alcoholic, who's okay as long as he > doesn't start drinking again. But if he fiddles with Dark Arts, > even in passing, he's already done himself enough damage for them to > be much more dangerous than they might be for someone who'd never > had anything to do with them. > Alla: > > suddenly all the fighting for Snape's soul, fighting to keep > him clean from Dark Arts is deemed irellevant, IMO. Christina: I've never bought into this logic, and I still don't. Having Dumbledore's hesitancy to put Snape in the DADA position be about tempting him to the Dark Arts makes absolutely no sense to me. Dumbledore may keep Snape from the Dark Arts job, but he puts him in a *much more tempting* position when he sends him back to be a spy on the Death Eaters at the end of GOF - a valuable position to be sure, but there was *no* guarantee that Snape would even be welcomed back. There was a good chance he'd be killed. I like the analogy you made to alcoholism, so I'll tweak it a bit here. While the DADA job might be like having an alcoholic teach a class about how to battle alcoholism or deal with a relative that's an alcoholic (which actually makes a lot of sense), sending Snape back in as a spy is like sending an alcoholic into a group of other alcoholics, asking him to pretend to be one of them. It's literally dangling the metaphorical bottle in front of Snape's face (and asking him to take a swig or two now and again). I think that Dumbledore kept the DADA job from Snape mainly because he knew about the DADA curse and couldn't risk losing Snape. He needed him for when Voldemort rose again (and I think Dumbledore knew all along that he eventually would). Dumbledore was basically keeping Snape on reserve- he says, "You know what *I must ask* you to do" (emphasis mine), which leads me to believe that it was a kind of unspoken agreement all along that Snape would go back to spying if Voldemort returned. Once Snape went back to the DEs at the end of GOF, all the more reason to keep Snape out of the DADA job. If he had it, I think Dumbledore was afraid that LV would try to influence the children through Snape. Snape obviously couldn't do this, and not doing so would be a giant red flag to LV. I think that Dumbledore finally gave Snape the job because there was simply nobody else to do it. Everyone knows that DADA teachers don't last- the position isn't highly coveted. I've always thought that Dumbledore asked Lupin specifically to come teach because of Sirius, and while I don't have GOF on hand, didn't he do the same for Moody? Dumbledore *had* to get someone to fill the DADA post. He couldn't risk the MOM filling it for him and getting another Umbridge. Also, with LV on the prowl, it was absolutely essential for the children to get a solid education in DADA (a subject in which they are a bit behind). This doesn't even touch on Dumbledore's need for Slughorn's memory. Christina From spaced_out_space_cadet at hotmail.com Mon Sep 19 03:03:01 2005 From: spaced_out_space_cadet at hotmail.com (spacedoutspacecadet) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 03:03:01 -0000 Subject: Epilogue.. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140434 Hey All, Just a thought that I'm not sure has been discussed on here yet and if it has I would love directions to the posts! I was thinking that if JKR kills off Harry at the end of the series (and I don't believe that she will) I think that it is highly unlikely that she would put in an epilogue considering that most people believe that either or both Hermione and Ron will be killed off and Ginny as well. JKR has said that she believes that the last word of the series will be 'scar' and if Harry is going to be killed the only plausible idea that I can come up with for scar to be the final word is that Ginny lives, Harry manages to get her pregnant before he dies, she has a baby boy 'who looks just like his father except there is no scar'... ok anyone else see that as highly unlikely?? Personally I would love to have Harry survive and be happy for the rest of his days, with Ginny and his two best friends there as well... Ok, so i HOPE that happens I don't really believe it will though I do think that Harry will survive. Anyway don't post up here often... I'm more of a lurker than a poster but would love to get some feedback! SpacedOutSpaceCadet From juli17 at aol.com Mon Sep 19 03:02:08 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 03:02:08 -0000 Subject: Facilis descensus Averni---Snape's little problems In-Reply-To: <99.66f2d05b.305f7031@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140435 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, lizabet612 at a... wrote: > Hi This is my 2nd post so I'm threading gently.... My biggest issue with > Snape being like an alcoholic with the Dark Arts is that Dumbledore seemed to > understand this, hence kept Snape away from Teaching DADA. Snape even alludes > to this in Spinners End. What troubles me is what possibly happened over the > summer to Dumbledore to allow Snape to teach DADA. I think this is an > intentional misdirection of plot of JKRs and supports a part of the story we are not > aware of. > > -liz Julie says: I agree that something happened over the summer to make Dumbledore change his mind, and I suspect it has much to do with him destroying the ring horcux. By Dumbledore's own admission he only survived because of the quick thinking of Snape. His hand remained "dead," and we don't know if there were any additional ill-effects of the curse. Could Dumbledore have already been dying (or being kept alive through a stopper death or draught of living death potion)? We don't know, but it seems quite likely to me that Dumbledore put Snape in the DADA position with the knowledge that it would be Snape's last year at Hogwarts, and probably with the expectation that Snape would return to Voldemort to continue his spying on a deeper level as the war intensified. Dumbledore knew of the curse, and whether he believed in it completely, certainly Snape would be one who could easily fall prey to it by giving into his worst instincts (if that's how it works). Whether Dumbledore also expected to be gone and/or dead by the end of the year we don't know. Just one more thing in HBP that isn't clear! Some have also advanced the theory that Dumbledore moved Snape into the DADA position because he needed Slughorn at Hogwarts (to get that vital altered memory), and Slughorn is a Potions teacher. But as important as the altered memory might be, is it more important than keeping Snape at Hogwarts and accessible to the Order if at all possible? I don't think so. It may have just worked out that Dumbledore was able to accomplish two things with one action--bring Slughorn to Hogwarts and put Snape in position for his return to Voldemort, while also using Snape's superior DADA skills to impart critical knowledge to the students--and to Harry--at a critical time. (Whether one can include Harry's suspiciously coincidental discovery of the HBP's potion book as another deliberate effort for Snape to impart critical knowledge to Harry is very open to debate.) Oops, I strayed from the alcoholic symbolism. It could fit Snape, and it could be one reason why Dumbledore kept Snape away from the DADA position for so many years, but I think the primary reason is that Dumbledore didn't want to chance losing Snape to the curse, whether that curse is an outside force or simply caters to the "victim's" innate weaknesses. And since Dark Arts attraction is one of Snape's main weaknesses, maybe it's all the same thing anyway! Julie From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Sep 19 03:36:30 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 03:36:30 -0000 Subject: Strictly Potions, Snape or Lily WAS Re: The handwriting in the book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140436 Replies to Carol and Dungrollin. I have chopped and rearranged and I'm not sure I have answered all points on the subject. Valky: > While we were on the subject of Snapes sense of humour I wanted to add a note about the Bezoar. I forgot there so I'll just notch it in here. Just shove a bezoar down their throats. Cheeky, no? Cheeky was Lily's style. It's falling in the wrong field of wit to have Sarcastic Snape behind it. > Dungrollin: Hmm... I don't think we've got enough information to pin it to Lily's style. To me it sounds more like Ron than anybody. I agree that it doesn't sound bitter enough for Snape, though there's a tinge of arrogance to it that reminds me of Sirius and James. I read it as a clue that Snape wasn't always bitter and dismissive and cold. Current Snape would write simply "Bezoar. Does this fool know nothing?" Carol wrote: ....however much the young Severus may recommend stuffing a bezoar down someone's throat--which does not sound to me at all like something our gentle Lily would say. Valky now: Actually I do think that we have direct canon information suggesting that it is exactly Lily's style. HBP Chapter 18 page 354 Bloomsbury edition. "'And you, Harry,' he said. 'what have you got to show me'?' Harry held out his hand, a bezoar sitting in his palm. ........... 'You've got a nerve boy!' he boomed, taking the bezoar and holding it up so that could see it. 'Oh you're like your mother...' ........... ...Slughorn 'And and extra ten points to Gryffindor for sheer cheek!'" Apart from this, I can't find the quote, but Slughorn also spoke fondly of Lily often giving him cheek in his classes. Then aftre Aragogs burial he again tells Harry, a third time, that his mother was likeable because of her sense of humour. Whether you consider Slughorn reliable for the absolute truth or not, is no reason to question his consistency about what he likes. He knows what he likes, and he thought Lily was funny, cheeky. And he attributes the self -same cheek to the Bezoar as an antidote, he attributes it directly to Lily. It's Lily's style, simple and straightforward canon proves it. Carol: We also have Snape's established gift for Potions, demonstrated in all the books, mentioned by Slughorn in HBP and tacitly acknowledged by Dumbledore when he offered young Snape the post of Potions master rather than DADA teacher. Why deny or denigrate it? Valky: I'm sorry, I don't think it's *that* personal, Carol. :D I always got the sense prior to HBP that Snape himself was less than fond of his potions reputation. He seemed to me to be even somewhat resentful of being turned to for Potions brilliance all the time. His DADA fascination half answered the question for me when we discovered it to be true to canon. I began to understand that he would prefer to be turned to for his abilities in DADA, than for Potions. So in any case I have never really considered Snape to love Potions as much as all that since POA and especially GOF. Being the resident Potions Hand didn't give him pleasure nor stroke his ego the way I felt it should. That's merely my canon interpretation of Snape, I have no personal intent to denigrate the character I am only trying to read it. Carol: To return to Valky's post for a moment: Why would young Snape suggest adding a peppermint leaf to a Euphoria potion? Maybe because he knew the side effects and didn't want to experience them? Maybe as an intellectual exercise to see what worked? Maybe his mum gave him that particular hint, but there's no canon evidence that she excelled at anything other than gobstones. Maybe he looked across the room and saw Lily adding one or overheard Slughorn praising her for doing so. But considering all the other experimentation that he's doing, it makes just as much sense to take the straightforward approach of assuming that it's as much his own idea as Sectumsempra (which is clearly a retaliation for bullying by "enemies"). Valky: But my point is that intellectual makes less sense that intuitive in this particular case, and Slughorn insists that Lily's ability was intuitive while we know with fairly reasonable assurity that Snapes ability is generally intellectual. It is intuitive and sensitive to add an ingredient that creates a perfume, and reduces side effects. I don't deny that it can be reached intellectually I just wonder if that is how it *was* reached. Its clearly easier to come up with an ingenuity that provides pleasantries and generousity to the user *when* that is your intention. Dungrollin was interested in this aspect of my argument too: And (to repeat myself), I see no reason to assume that someone who invents a way of reducing the side effects of a drug or potion has to be in any way concerned with the well-being of the person who takes it. It's like suggesting that a construction engineer who's working on a hospital must be a philanthropist, or that anyone who's done research into cancer treatment must be a saint. They're not saints, they're researchers, driven by a desire to understand the world and how it works. (Okay, some of them *might* be saints, but my point is that it is not a prerequisite for the job, nor is it a prerequisite for having an interest in the subject...) Valky replies: But I am not suggesting that philanthropy is a prerequisite for a civil engineer, I am saying that a philanthropic engineer would find it easier to think of a way to make people comfortable and add pleasantries to their work. A non-philanthropic engineer could achieve it mechanically, sure, but that doesn't detract from the fact that someone whos first intention is to add comfort and generosity to their work would probably get there first. A saintly cancer researcher would possibly be more inclined to avoid a path of suffering in their search for a cure, while one who is purely interested in the mechanics and intracacies of the science would go any path that did the job. Hence peppermint flavoured cancer cures are more likely to come from the first than the latter, although either could get there eventually. Valky previously: Snape is neither gentle nor well groomed, he doesn't have the sensitivity required to percieve the growth in Hermione's teeth in GOF, nor does he possess any obvious sensibility about his own appearance. These are the aesthetics that translate into the potions improvements, and they aren't Snapes style. Dungrollin: Sooo... ugly people can't appreciate a Titian or Rembrandt? Ever seen Rembrandt's self-portrait? Okay, I know that's not what you were arguing, but it's like saying that all Doctors must have a wonderful bedside manner because they're there to cure people. It's just not true, and neither is it true in the Potterverse: Madam Pomfrey's quite scary, and I don't remember offhand any sign of gentleness in her among the many times Harry ends up in the hospital wing. Valky: You admit that's not my argument, and neither is it like saying a doctor needs a good bedside manner. It's like saying a doctor with a good bedside manner as long as he is a proficient doctor, will give the patient a *little extra* to take away with him. A'la Patch Adams, see. Snape is a highly competent doctor (read potionmaker), but with his apparent bedside manner he would need to intellectually conclude that a little extra niceness will help the patient (read drinker) to be the more likely to come up with a sprig of Peppermint the thing is intellectually that doesn't conclude so easily. It's not to say it didn't happen, but the question remains, with an intuitive potioneer in his class and in his group of elite, was "Snape" really the first to add a sprig of peppermint? Valky From msbeadsley at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 04:50:31 2005 From: msbeadsley at yahoo.com (msbeadsley) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 04:50:31 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Longbottoms In-Reply-To: <83.3020d889.305e60f4@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140437 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at a... wrote: > I don't think we know from canon that Neville was supposed to be > dead also, do we? I seem to recall Dumbledore only said Voldemort I guess I didn't make it clear that I was speaking from Snape's ostensible point of view: Voldemort "should" have decided that Neville was the Prophecy baby and killed *him* instead of Harry, which would mean Lily would be alive and there wouldn't be anything very much special about Harry. > In any case, it doesn't appear to me that Snape treats Neville > and Harry the same way. Every time he goes off on Neville it's > because of yet another potion he's bumbled. I'm sure that he's Which is exactly my point. Neville could have been "the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord," but he was spared, by Voldemort or fate or whatever. Not the best of results, in Snape's view, with the alternative being a snarl of a doubled lifedebt to James, Lily dead, and Harry the WW's hero. Every time Snape looks at Neville he sees a real waste of space; if only Voldemort had killed him, he thinks wistfully. So every time Neville bungles something, it really rankles...the kid is (in the vernacular of my Kentucky upbringing) "hardly worth the powder and lead it'd take to shoot him." I'm not very attached to this; it was just musings. Sandy aka msbeadsley From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Mon Sep 19 06:24:02 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 06:24:02 -0000 Subject: Fidelius and Peer pressure Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140438 wrote: > It's a question of what is > charmed, the house or the Potters? I'm inclined to think that it was > the house. Pettigrew charmed the house, using the Fidelius, hence, > as the caster, he still had access to its whereabouts. Once the > house is destroyed, the charm is broken and just like magic, anyone > who ever knew where GH was can remember/find it again. I have no > doubt that DD was the one who suggested in the first place, that the > Potter's hide at GH. > Elyse: I think it is the inhabitants rather than the house that is charmed. Didnt someone in PoA say Voldemort couldnt find the potters even if he had his nose pressed to the living room window? In order to do that he would have been able to find the house, but not the people in it. > Elyse: > The Slytherin gang doesnt cut it with me. I see them as the > peer pressure exerted to use the Dark Arts. >Valky: >I don't know how that conclusion can be drawn, to be honest. We have >it on a decent enough authority that Snape came to Hogwarts already >deeply interested in Dark Arts. And after HBP, we have gotten all >the >confirmation we need about it haven't we? Snape speaks of Dark Arts >in > loving tone, he invents curses of a highly insidious nature. >His Dark Arts interest is of his own volition, the impetus is *in >Snape himself*. With so much evidence against it, peer pressure >doesn't cut it for me. Elyse: Actually, what I meant was not pressure to use the Dark Arts. I believe Sirius was right when he said Snape came to school with a deep interest in and good working knowledge of the Dark Arts. I'm just sorry that the friends he made did not discourage this fascination. I 'm willing to bet they egged him on even more and laughed like Peter did when he used them. So Snape who had no social skills to begin with found a way of making friends through the Dark arts. I'm not saying there were no other examples he could have followed. He knew what he was doing, he knew it was wrong. I 'm just disappointed no one AFAWK tried to push him way fronm this Dark arts tendency. Peer pressure in favour of the Dark arts to an already fascinated kid who lacked social skills and was probably insecure, did nothing to help, though, you must admit. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Sep 19 06:37:46 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 06:37:46 -0000 Subject: The handwriting in the book (Was: Lily and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140439 I really haven't answered this thread very completely in my last post to it. So I have decided to pick it up again since it really is an interesting discussion. > > Valky: > > I agree they are all reasonable suggestions, but I think we do > > know that DADA is Snapes pet subject. > > > Among other things, his loving caress of a speech about Dark Arts, > > his inventions, and his reputation for being nose deep in anything > > Dark Arts since he was a child.. this all speaks multitudes about > > it. > > Dungrollin: > (Forgive me for butting in) On the other hand, the 'foolish wand- > waving' comment suggests to me a love of theory and its application > to practical matters. Valky: Well said Dungrollin. I don't mind the butting in at all, I agree with that. It totally refutes all contention that the inventions in the textbook were not Snape's but I don't see any of that here. :D I really don't believe it refutes the canon that DADA is Snape's pet subject though. If he's to be found delving into theory of subjects and considering practical applications then the ratio of subjects he's doing it with is 5:1 DADA:anything else at all. I think we have enough canon to go with an assumption like that. > > > > zgirnius: > > > Well, actually I don't find it odd to ascribe either quality to > > > Snape. For aesthetics, I'd cite his first ever speech in Potions > > > class. Poetic, that. > > > > Valky now: > > There is a definite connection between Snapes > fashionable eloquence and his genius in incantation, but it's a > different kettle of fish to perfumery, shimmer, and an elegant touch > with nature itself. These things would translate into a well groomed > person (nice smelling potions), with a gentleness about them > (removing less pleasant side effects from the potion), a love and > affinity with nature (bean juicing). > > Dungrollin: > Sooo... ugly people can't appreciate a Titian or Rembrandt? Ever > seen Rembrandt's self-portrait? > > And I think that translating a more efficient way of getting juice > out of a bean into a love of nature is a bit of a stretch. > And, furthermore, why should a love of nature (if it's a valid > deduction, which I don't think it is) be more obviously ascribable > to Lily than Snape? Did we hear about her and James going for long > walks in the countryside around Hogsmeade and I've forgotten? Valky: Okay first things first, my initial point is that Perfumery and Snape are not a match. Perfumery and a popular girl are a match. Simple as that. That's pretty essentially my argument when it comes to Snapes sensibilities. OTOH I concede that extrapolating a love of nature from bean juicing is a fair bit thin. I add it because the other two arguments are strong, we at least know for certain that Snape is not your natureloving type. So if the deduction holds at all it eliminates Snape from the running. That is as good as it gets so I am willing to drop it, and concede your point that its thin and wrinkled as the bean itself. > > > > Valky: > > > > It's not his area to add a sprig > > > > of peppermint to improve a euphoria potion, is it? Surely not. > Why would Snape even *care* about "Euphoria" potion of all things? > Let alone whether it smelled nice or if the dunderhead who bothered > to take it tweaked his nose and burst into foolish song all over the > > place. > > > > Dungrollin: > Well... I can think of a good number of underhand reasons. A > Euphoria potion might be quite useful if you needed to get somebody > to do something they wouldn't ordinarily have the confidence to do. Valky: Well yeah thats a fair enough reason I suppose. But there are other spells and potions it doesn't seem absoutely necessary. Dungrollin: > I suppose that it's quite well known that there are side effects to > many potions. If you were trundling along euphorically, about to do > something daring that you'd never otherwise do and found yourself > tweaking noses and bursting into song, you might suddenly > think "Hang on - I remember reading something about this..." then > become suspicious that you were under the influence of a behaviour- > changing potion, and decide that going to bed to sleep it off > (cheerfully) is a much better idea. If, on the other hand, you > simply found yourself euphoric and decided to do something you > wouldn't normally do and there were *no* tell-tale signs that > something was amiss, the devious schemer's plan would be more likely > to work, wouldn't it? Valky: Well hang on, I m finding it hard to get the whole picture. The schemer would probably need to use some other spell or magic to get the drinker to do the deeds, right? For the drinker to assume it's just the potions side effects. In that case why bother so much with a sweet smelling euphoria with no side effects to begin with. Fake side effects are just more trouble requiring additional spells. Am I understanding you? > Valky: > and consider, The same person who intellectually derived > improvements to potions recipes through scientific trial an error, > gives a cheekfaced attitude to the notion of troubling too much to > do the same for an antidote. It's counterintuitive, IMO. > > Dungrollin: > But it wasn't that he didn't bother with the antidotes, Harry seems > to think that the Half-Blood Prince had (like Hermione) understood > the theory with no problem. Snape may not ever have found an > improvement on the method of using 'Specialis revelio' to separate > the poisons, Valky: You know I found this an amusing point. When I was rereading the chapter with the bezoar scene in it earlier I was reminded that Harry and Ron couldn't copy Hermione's Specialis Revelio spell because she was adept at non verbal spells. They had to wait for Ernie MacMillan to incant it aloud in order to remember what it was. This was n uncomfortable moment for them :D Anyhow, back to the point, what you say above actually construes in my defense. Harry found no notes on improving Golpalotts laws in the textbook, the bezoar notation was later in the book scrawled over a list of general antidotes to poison. Suggesting that Snape himself didn't consider alternatives to Golpalotts law just to the antidotes list (probably all for poisons treatable via bezoar), the bezoar as an alternative to analysis was all Harry, and apparently according to Slughorn very much the kind of thing Lily would have done. > Dungrollin > Utterly convinced that Snape has a deep love of learning, and > reading, and enquiring about the universe. Valky Also utterly convinced of Snapes deep love of learning, reading and enquiring, but not convinced that the potions notations are Snapes mind at work. From smollon at pacbell.net Mon Sep 19 03:12:14 2005 From: smollon at pacbell.net (Sandra) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 03:12:14 -0000 Subject: Epilogue.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140440 "spacedoutspacecadet" wrote: > I was thinking that if JKR kills off Harry at the end of the > series (and I don't believe that she will) I think that it is > highly unlikely that she would put in an epilogue considering > that most people believe that either or both Hermione and Ron > will be killed off and Ginny as well. > > Personally I would love to have Harry survive and be happy for > the rest of his days, with Ginny and his two best friends there > as well... Sandra: My favorite "ending" is a fast forward to seeing Harry on a Chocolate Frog card as the wizard who vanquished the Evil LV, while sitting in DD's old desk as a head master of Hogwarts :), his days as an Auror long over. I really want Harry to survive (and be happy!), otherwise, I believe the series will lose its charm for me. From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Sep 19 06:11:27 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 06:11:27 -0000 Subject: Conflict, imposition, and morality (waRe: Sadistic Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140441 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Del replies: > Inappropriately according to your rules > and mine, but not necessarily according > to his own rules. He has absolutely no > obligation to adopt our rules, you know. > But of course he has an obligation to live by our rules Del, if he is to be in the right! Whether HE thinks those are the right rules or not is irrelevant. I am totally convinced that my moral code is superior to Snape's. If I was not so convinced, I would adopt Snape's code and abandon my own. Therefore, Snape is totally and utterly in the wrong. The fact that he feels the same about me is absolutely irrelevant to that. There IS no objective stance in morality. The only thing that can be done is for everyone to uphold the moral stances they honestly think are correct, which means that, whether they admit it or not, they think everyone who doesn't agree with them is the wrong and needs to mend their ways. > vmonte wrote: > "because he does not feel bound to do the > right thing, " > > Del replies: > Not necessarily. First, it's not certain > we and he agree on what "the right thing" > is. And once again, whether he would agree or not is utterly irrelevant to whether he is doing the right thing and needs to mend his ways. As I said, the vendetta is the right > thing to do in some circles. Second, > not every moral system states that one > should always try and do "the right thing", > whatever it is. And third, there's the very > tricky matter of "exceptions": when do > we depart from our general rules? Different > people have different ideas of what > exceptions are acceptable. > > vmonte wrote: > "he has not learned the appropriate > standards of conduct from Dumbledore," > > Del replies: > You're using the word "appropriate" yet > again, even though you haven't demonstrated > that your morality is inherently better > than Snape's. You argue that Snape should > have learned to act like DD, I ask why. In > the absence of a High Ruler who makes the > rules, everyone is free to make their own > rules, and nobody has to conform to anybody > else's rules. If one breaks the law, then > one can be legally punished, but that's > about it. If Snape doesn't want to adopt > DD's morality, that's his right. > But the very point of having laws and rules, the only possible purpose for them, in fact, is to force people to do what is morally right whether they want to do it or not, and whether they agree with the assessment of what is right or not. One can say that Dumbledore is not a High King and Snape has no legal obligation to obey him, but that is evading the point. The point is who you believe is in the right. If you believe that DD is in the right, then Snape absolutely has a moral obligation to adapt himself to DD's moral code -- whether Snape agrees with the code is of no importance whatsoever. And you (the generic you) can say that this is no different than Voldemort, and you would be absolutely right, and the point is absolutely irrelevent. Of course Voldemort is acting according to what he thinks is right and believes all others are wrong. Nobody can act any other way. The nature of human interaction is that a person will inevitably think their code is right and everyone else's is wrong, and that other people therefore have an obligation to do what is right. Therefore Snape, by my code, is absolutely in the wrong and should be punished for not changing his ways, and I will regard it as extraordinarily bad writing on JKR's part if that is not part of his fate. Is that imposing my moral code on someone else? Absolutely. There is no other way to be a moral person -- which is the same as saying there is no other way to be a person. Even relativism and tolerance amount to nothing more than imposing your code on someone else by proudly proclaiming that your morality prevents you from judging people except for people who judge people. Does that guarantee permanent argument, stress, and conflict in human society? Absolutely. There is no other way human society can be. Does that mean that some people -- everyone in fact -- will often feel beset and imposed upon by people trying to force their morals on them? Absolutely, that is a part of human existance and there is no way around it. Does that mean that there is no objective point at which one can stand and say that they can measure moral systems? Absolutely. Will all of this ever come to an end? Sure, most of us believe that God will eventually make a ruling. But until then, constant conflict, struggle, and the constant attempt to impose our moral code on others is the best possible world that can exist. Lupinlore From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 07:53:01 2005 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 07:53:01 -0000 Subject: Hepzibah Smith, Tobias Snape, & Nathaniel Hawthorne... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140443 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "strina_brulyo" wrote: In Message 140098, strina_brulyo wrote: Strina: >So it seems quite clear to me that Rowling has planted some >Hawthorne clues in Book 6. Or are they really clues? Talisman, currently stirring up a boiling cauldronful of theories, on a slightly different subject, responds: I rarely drop by HPfGUs anymore, preferring to post elsewhere, but Jen Reese recently mentioned reading an interesting Hawthorne post, and that set me on your trail. I love Hawthorne, so I had to have a peek. I must say that reflecting on the HP series has frequently brought Hawthorne to mind, more for genre comparison than anything else. As I've posted several times, long ago (at least back to 2003), I consider Rowling's style a renewed version of Romanticism, the genre to which Hawthorne's works belong. (Romanticism as defined in Northrup Frye's _Anatomy of Criticism_. (N.B. For the benefit of those unfamiliar with Romanticism as a literary movement, it has nothing to do with paperback romance novels.) I must also say, at the outset, that though I would like to find Hawthorne in the HP series, and may in fact find interesting similarities, I can't quite bring myself to believe that Rowling--a woman who has insisted on all-Brit actors for the HP movies, and who has indicated in an interview that she will not portray any "American" witches, beyond the contingent seen at the QWC-- would intentionally base, even part, of her series on the works or life of such a quintessential American writer. Nonetheless, here are a few more tidbits of grist for your mill: Nathaniel Hawthorne was more than a mere resident of Salem, he was a descendant of local Puritan stock. We might note here that the Puritans are associated with Calvinism, as is the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, which Rowling claims to attend, although her qualifying comments indicate that she is a cheerful heretic. Hawthorne himself was not an active Calvinist, though he understood them. To the contrary, he was mortified by the behavior of his ancestors and their mean-spirited treatment of Quakers and supposed "witches," etc. One such ancestor, in particular, gave Hawthorne reason to feel the need to address the sins of the old Puritans. John Hathorne (Nathaniel added the "w" to the family name), actively participated in the notorious Salem witch trials of 1692, both as an interrogator and a judge. As such, John Hathorne had direct culpability in the deaths of accused "witches," and, unlike many others, refused to repent of his behavior, even after the murderous frenzy passed. Taking a stand against the deeds of his Puritan fathers, Hawthorne's tales repeatedly disfavor specifically "Puritan" characters. E.g. The townsfolk who "punish" Hester in _The Scarlet Letter_ are shown to be the petty, mean, hypocritical purveyors of a degraded religion, while Hester represents an aspect of the Divine. "Young Goodman Brown," _The House of Seven Gables_, etc. all reveal the faults of the self-righteous, intolerant, witch-hunting Puritans. You could certainly say that, in preferring the witches over the persecutors, Rowling stands with Hawthorne. Hawthorne's stories also demonstrate "love" as a transcendent power. E.g. In Seven Gables, it breaks the curse. In Scarlet Letter Hester's "A" is transformed into a symbol of Amour. The "A," elevated in it's elaborate embroidery, and later, chivalric escutcheon, is symbolic of the truly Godlike love for mankind that Hester demonstrates throughout the tale. Rowling has set Harry's ability to love as the power Voldemort knows not, a power of prime importance to LV's "defeat," whatever that turns out to be. No matter what, it does seem that Rowling and Hawthorne share some stylistic and philosophical views. This is just a quick response. I've got a few more weeks to devote to brewing my current pot of theories, but I thank you for bringing up the lovely Mr. Hawthorne, and I may come back later, to add more. Talisman, who thinks Hawthorne's "The Maypole of Merry Mount" should be read aloud at every Thanksgiving table, and who has been known to scribble graffiti urging "Down with the Puritans" on any surface that presents itself in November. P.S. The tolerant Dutch in New Amsterdam (New York) were here before the Pilgrims. So were the gold-hunting lunatics in the Virginia colonies, not to mention the Spanish, who established the Castillo de San Marcos (in St. Augustine FLA) before anyone. The whole Pilgrims-as-arch-forefathers thing is a nasty bit of revisionist tripe. Plus, there's very good evidence that they hijacked the Mayflower, which was supposed to land in Anglican VA, even though the Pilgrims (the minority on board) had managed to tuck helpful maps of Plymouth Mass. into their luggage. From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 09:42:03 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 09:42:03 -0000 Subject: Why are wizards so incompetent? (Was Face it, there is a reward for being nice ( In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.0.20050918181647.01de4d00@pop.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140444 Katherine: >Joking aside, the incompetence of many of the adults of the WW is a problem in the series. The corruption I don't have a problem with; it strikes me as pretty realistic, actually, especially given that the WW is a small, insular, inbred community where everyone knows (or at least knows of) everyone else. Cronyism and backhanders flourish in that kind of environment... ...The incompetence, though... yeah, that's a problem. To a certain extent you can hand-wave it away; John Schilling remarked on rec.arts.sf.written that: "the Wizarding world is noticeably backwards in its approach to, well, just about everything that isn't Wizardry. Which is actually plausible, given how useful Wizardry seems to be for lots of things the rest of us have had to resort to Extreme Cleverness for." In other words: they don't need to be smart, they can do magic! >Cop-out, I know, but it works if you don't push it too far... Amiable Dorsai: I don't think it's a copout, I think it's central to the background of the story. People who are raised in a world where 2+2 is sometimes 4 and sometimes whatever you need it to be, and where you can easily pour a gallon-and-a-half out of a 1-quart jug, are going to have a different sort of logic than you and I. It would be wrong if Wizards and Witches, especially purebloods, thought and acted precisely like Muggles--particularly if they live lives deliberately isolated from Muggles. In addition, the Wizarding World is a small town. If you push the numbers really hard, and squint a little, you can make the total population of Wizarding Great Britain 20 thousand humans. A more likely number is one to two-thirds that. They simply haven't the population to produce more than a few creative geniuses per generation. Ideas filter in through the Muggleborns and half-bloods, but are probably resisted by the Purebloods, and once accepted, interpreted by them through the filter of their own culture and knowledge. Pureblood "incompetence" is a logical consequence. Ink spent on the resulting hilarity is not bad writing, it's good entertainment. And a fascinating inversion of the "man from Mars" trope, where we, seeing the WW through Harry's eyes, are the aliens attempting to understand the logic of a culture that proceeds from different postulates than our own. Amiable Dorsai From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 11:38:29 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:38:29 -0000 Subject: Aesthetics in the Potterverse (Was: Lily and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140445 > houyhnhnm: > Appreciation of nature is one of the things that has struck me as > being absent from the Potterverse, Amiable Dorsai: Erm... the ceiling of the Great Hall at Hogwarts is charmed to look like the sky. Is this the sort of thing that people who have no appreciation of nature would do? > houyhnhnm: along with art, music and poetry. Amiable Dorsai: Harry lives in a castle stuffed to the rafters with portraits, still lifes, and landscapes. Not to mention suits of (presumably ornate) armor and a sword with a jeweled hilt. We not only know they have music, we know the names of some popular musicians (Celestina Warbeck, The Weird Sisters). Poetry? You may have a stronger case here, but The Sorting Hat, at least, enjoys writing doggerel. > houyhnhnm: > There don't seem to be any artisans, either, except among the >Goblins. Amiable Dorsai: Well, there's Madame Malkin, Mr. Olivander, and Florean Fortescue. Not to mention whoever made all of the instruments in Dumbledore's office. > houyhnhnm: > Despite the setting of Hogwart's Castle, there are no lyrical > descriptions of nature such as one finds in Mary Stewart's Merlin > trilogy, for instance. > > I had assumed this must be due to the author's inability to write > such passages or her own lack of interest... Amiable Dorsai: Or Harry's lack of interest. Can you really see Harry waxing lyrical about a sunset? On the other hand, remember Harry's first sight of Hogwarts? From "Sorcerer's Stone": "There was a loud 'Oooooh!' The narrow path had opened suddenly onto the edge of a great black lake. Perched atop a high mountain on the other side, its windows sparkling in the starry sky, was a vast castle with many turrets and towers." If the whole boat trip isn't arranged to give the first years an aesthetic experience, I'll eat the Sorting Hat. Amiable Dorsai From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Sep 19 11:50:21 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:50:21 -0000 Subject: Facilis descensus Averni---Snape's little problems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140446 Lealess wrote: > I can see the attraction of this argument, as it echoes what Rowling > said herself, that the DADA position would bring out the worst in > Snape (although I think she was being tongue-in-cheek). Potioncat: It's a joke! I get it now. I'm not sure if this is what you intended, Lealess, but I get the joke now. The jinx causes the some weakness of the DADA professor to "turn" on him/her. Carol said it so well in the post which is so often quoted. (btw, does anyone know the post number of Carol's DADA jinx essay?) JKR's comment was that DD didn't give Snape the post because it would bring out the worst in him. And we've taken it to mean that Snape wouldn't be able to handle being so close to the study of Dark Arts...but what JKR was saying in her sly way was DADA brings out the worst in everyone! >Lealess Unfortunately, we saw little of Snape teaching DADA, > so we don't know what effect teaching the class had on him. He didn't > seem overly preoccupied with Dark Arts when we did see him, however. > He had more pressing things on his mind. Potioncat: I think the weakness that was brought out in Snape was the balance of loyalties; or possibly his arrogance (you know, that trait he so hates to see in Harry?) One thing that we frequently see with Snape is that he has the cure at hand in almost every situation. Although he threatened to poison Neville's toad, he had the antidote in his pocket. When Harry tossed firecrackers in Draco's cauldron and many students were splashed with the potion, Snape had the antidote at his desk. In each case when Dark Arts injured someone, he was the one with the treatment. I know, it could be said this is a requirement of any teacher. But my point is, particularly in the DADA position, that Snape is as well versed in the "Defense of" as he is in the "Dark Arts". He seems as intrested in the light as in the dark. I'm reminded of Madam Pomfrey's comment about Lupin in PoA: at last we have a Dark Arts teacher who knows his remedies! 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. From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 12:14:46 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 12:14:46 -0000 Subject: Hagrid in GH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140447 Valky: > So finally, how dd Dumbledore know where to send Hagrid? He didn't. > Hagrid knew where Harry was, and that was enough information for > everybody. Finwitch: You know, now that you said that - I agree. Because well, it just explains everything. Like why the 24-hour gap people have been talking about -- Hagrid thought it would take him that much, which is why the time was then. It also gives Hagrid a chance to tell McGonagall where Dumbledore would be at certain time. (She'd been looking for Albus, and though Hagrid wouldn't know where Dumbledore was THEN, he could tell her where he *would* be... As to where Albus was -- I dunno, visiting his brother Aberforth at Hogs' Head?) As to where Hagrid was between picking up Harry and arriving at Privet Drive-- no matter. I'd say he had to stop from time to time to feed the little baby, change his diapers and play with little Harry... Finwitch From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 12:58:46 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 12:58:46 -0000 Subject: Why give Snape DADA? ( was: Facilis descensus Averni...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140448 >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. Amiable Dorsai: I've got to disagree--I think that Snape was moved primarily in order to put Slughorn and his memories within reach of Lily Evans's (as Slughorn thinks of her) son. I think this was so important to Dumbledore that he was willing to sacrifice Snape for it. And I think Dumbledore was right to do it. The information that Tom most likely split his soul into seven parts is absolutely crucial to Harry's quest. Granted that it works on other levels; Dumbledore certainly is capable of putting wheels within his wheels. Even Harry appears to think that Snape is a competent DADA instructor: despite disagreeing with Snape on the best way to handle Dementors, he's not tempted to start DA meetings again. But I wonder if Dumbledore ever discussed the sacrifice aspect of his transfer with Snape? Amiable Dorsai From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Sep 19 13:25:32 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:25:32 -0000 Subject: Hagrid in GH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140449 > Valky: > > > So finally, how dd Dumbledore know where to send Hagrid? He didn't. > > Hagrid knew where Harry was, and that was enough information for > > everybody. > > Finwitch: > > You know, now that you said that - I agree. Because well, it just > explains everything. Like why the 24-hour gap people have been talking > about -- Hagrid thought it would take him that much, which is why the > time was then. It also gives Hagrid a chance to tell McGonagall where > Dumbledore would be at certain time. (She'd been looking for Albus, and > though Hagrid wouldn't know where Dumbledore was THEN, he could tell > her where he *would* be... As to where Albus was -- I dunno, visiting > his brother Aberforth at Hogs' Head?) > > As to where Hagrid was between picking up Harry and arriving at Privet > Drive-- no matter. I'd say he had to stop from time to time to feed the > little baby, change his diapers and play with little Harry... Ceridwen: Not sure what to clip, so I kept it all. At least, it's short! But, I'm wondering, what about the school? The headmaster and deputy headmistress, which also means the Transfiguration teacher, are notably missing from the school. Since Vernon went to work, I'd think it was a weekday and not a weekend. Who took over McGonagall's class while she was reading the paper on the corner of Privet Drive? (I suppose Dumbledore could have been in his office, and could even have taken over classes, at least N.E.W.T. level, and sent McG. to watch the house, but that is never mentioned) Ceridwen. From dc.thorburn at ntlworld.com Mon Sep 19 13:25:17 2005 From: dc.thorburn at ntlworld.com (Derek Thorburn) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:25:17 +0100 Subject: Harry's first time in Dumbledore's office Message-ID: <005001c5bd1d$947eb400$3e781652@thorburn> No: HPFGUIDX 140450 I've been thinking a lot lately of Harry's first time in Dumbledore's office, which was just after he discovered the double attack of Justin and Nearly Headless Nick. After Dumbledore said to him, "I must ask you whether there is anything you'd like to tell me; anything at all" I wondered if there would have been a more speedy outcome to the mystery of the attacks if Harry had launched straight from Dobby's visit at the Dursleys' home and the fact that Dobby had sealed the barrier at King's Cross. I know Ron had told him that it was a bad sign among wizards to speak of the fact that Harry was hearing voices nobody else could hear, but Harry had just found out that his strange language to the snake at the duelling club was called parceltongue. It seems to me that Dumbledore was saying, "Harry, I want to ask you today if you want to tell me anything. Even if it is unimportant to you, it may be important to me". Derek From sherriola at earthlink.net Mon Sep 19 14:32:46 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 07:32:46 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Fidelius and Peer pressure In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001901c5bd27$022b6620$0921f204@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 140451 Elyse: I think it is the inhabitants rather than the house that is charmed. Didnt someone in PoA say Voldemort couldnt find the potters even if he had his nose pressed to the living room window? In order to do that he would have been able to find the house, but not the people in it. Sherry now: I wonder if it can be both? after all I believe Dumbledore was the secret keeper for Grimauld Place, not for Sirius. i suppose in may not matter either way. The idea is that it is supposed to be hidden, perhaps both the place and the people. Sherry From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Sep 19 15:42:03 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 15:42:03 -0000 Subject: Why are wizards so incompetent? (Was Face it, there is a reward for being nice (was Re: Sadistic Snape)) In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.0.20050918181647.01de4d00@pop.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140452 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Katherine Farmar wrote: > Pippin: > > > > > > It distances us from the characters a little, yes. But that's JKR being post-modern again. Just because something would make the story more affecting doesn't mean it's true. Think of all the little kids who were disappointed that Snape wasn't the villain in SS/PS. Snape makes a much more satisfactory villain than Quirrell or Voldemort, but it doesn't mean that's what he is. > > > > > Lupinlore: > >Postmodern? By some definitions of the term, yes. Perhaps JKR even intends it that way. But I think it (the distancing effect by which we often find ourselves unable to sympathize with the characters andfeeling contempt for Hogwarts) is much more likely to just be poor writing and bad characterization. Let's face it, JKR is often ham- fisted beyond belief and deeply enslaved to exhausted and boring formulas about heroes and their journeys. Pippin: What I meant by 'postmodern' was that JKR writes with an awareness of literary conventions and often uses them in unconventional ways. I agree that her morality is not post-modern at all. There is definitely good and evil in the Potterverse, but, IMO, she uses the tools of postmodernism to expose the ways in which conventional thinking about good and evil can blind us to what she considers the reality. Fudge is laughably incompetent -- and so we fall into JKR's trap, because if I am right and JKR has one last unsuspected villain up her sleeve, then *the readers* are Fudge, unable to take Voldemort seriously, hoping the wrong man will be caught-- while all the time the right man has stolen his way into their good graces and simultaneously prepared to stab Harry in the back. Katherine: > But push it too far, and this explanation starts to crack. It doesn't explain why Voldemort hasn't read the Evil Overlord List (*this* is the guy that had the wizarding world living in utter terror for eleven years?). The ability to understand and account for human motivations and the ability to plan your way out of a wet paper bag are *not* things that magic can substitute for. So as far as that's concerned, yes, I chalk it up incompetent writing. Pippin: You're asking why Jo didn't make Voldie a grounded, reality-based evil overlord? Have you ever heard of a grounded, reality-based person who *wanted* to be an evil overlord? Of course not! There are very dangerous men in the world, to be sure, but unlimited ambition cannot possibly coexist with a realistic grasp of one's limitations. In real life, good people act like idiots all the time. It's only in stories that we expect better. At least the wizarding world has some excuse. No one has a college education. And considering that the last generation was decimated by Voldemort, it's not surprising that there's a dearth of competent adults and the few who remain are so overstretched that they can't help but fumble some of their responsibilities. That's happened in history too. And Harry has acted like an idiot, in fact I'm pretty certain he's acting like an idiot now. In which case, JKR wants us to see him as a hero not for his wisdom or his discernment, but, as Dumbledore said, for his ability to want nothing more than to see Voldemort defeated, and for his willingness to use the special abilities he has received for that purpose alone. Pippin From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Sep 19 15:57:31 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 15:57:31 -0000 Subject: Hagrid in GH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140453 > Ceridwen: > But, I'm wondering, what about the school? The headmaster and deputy > headmistress, which also means the Transfiguration teacher, are > notably missing from the school. Since Vernon went to work, I'd > think it was a weekday and not a weekend. Who took over McGonagall's > class while she was reading the paper on the corner of Privet Drive? Potioncat: As everyone is celebrating, I'd guess the students at Hogwarts had been given the day off. I'm not sure if McGonagall was the deputy yet or even if she was head of Gryffindor. Do we have a date for that? So it could have been the Headmaster and one teacher missing. I'm sure Snape was staying close to Hogwarts at that moment. From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Mon Sep 19 16:08:33 2005 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:08:33 -0000 Subject: Facilis descensus Averni---Snape's little problems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140454 > > suddenly all the fighting for Snape's soul, fighting to keep > > him clean from Dark Arts is deemed irellevant, IMO. > > Christina:> > I've never bought into this logic, and I still don't. Having > Dumbledore's hesitancy to put Snape in the DADA position be about > tempting him to the Dark Arts makes absolutely no sense to me. > Dumbledore may keep Snape from the Dark Arts job, but he puts him in a > *much more tempting* position when he sends him back to be a spy on > the Death Eaters at the end of GOF - ... > > I think that Dumbledore kept the DADA job from Snape mainly because he > knew about the DADA curse and couldn't risk losing Snape. ... > it. Everyone knows that DADA teachers don't last- the position isn't > highly coveted. ... > Also, with LV on the prowl, it was absolutely essential for the > children to get a solid education in DADA (a subject in which > they are a bit behind). This doesn't even touch on > Dumbledore's need for Slughorn's memory. > > > Christina AUSSIE/NORBERTSMUMMY The need for Slughorn's memory, yes. But also, like Trelawney, DD wanted to invite Slughorn under his protective wing since Slughorn had been on the run from DE for more than a year. If Snape did not vacate the Potions position, Slughorn would have been hard pressed to teach a different topic than the one he tought and retired under. To quote a Wild Western, "There ain't enough room in this here school for 2 potions teachers. Showdown at high noon." There is also the factor that DD trusted Snape "conditionally" and not completely trusted him enough to unleash him on students in the DADA role. aussie From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 10:08:46 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:08:46 -0000 Subject: Conflict, imposition, and morality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140455 Lupinlore wrote: "I am totally convinced that my moral code is superior to Snape's." Del replies: I'm not. I am convinced that *God*'s code is superior to anybody else's, but that's because He's God. "If I was not so convinced, I would adopt Snape's code and abandon my own." Not me. I would never adopt Snape's code even if I abandoned mine, simply because I know that Snape's code is a painful one. "There IS no objective stance in morality. The only thing that can be done is for everyone to uphold the moral stances they honestly think are correct, which means that, whether they admit it or not, they think everyone who doesn't agree with them is the wrong and needs to mend their ways." I disagree. I do uphold God's moral stance, because He is God, and therefore knows better than any human being. But I try not to judge those who don't know God, I try not to judge their moral codes as being wrong, *because we have no common ground from which to do the judging*. I even defend their right to live by their own rules in their own sphere if they want to, as long as they respect the law. "But the very point of having laws and rules, the only possible purpose for them, in fact, is to force people to do what is morally right whether they want to do it or not, and whether they agree with the assessment of what is right or not." Yes, to force them to do what is morally right *according to the morality of the majority*, not necessarily according to their own morality. There is NO obligation for anyone to *adopt* the majority's morality, there's only an obligation to *respect* it in a few circumstances. Big difference. "One can say that Dumbledore is not a High King and Snape has no legal obligation to obey him, but that is evading the point." Not at all. It's refusing to face that fact that is evading the point, IMO. Snape simply has NO obligation to adopt anyone's moral code, period. As long as he respects the law, he's free to act in whatever way he wants. That's what *freedom* is about. "The point is who you believe is in the right. If you believe that DD is in the right, then Snape absolutely has a moral obligation to adapt himself to DD's moral code -- whether Snape agrees with the code is of no importance whatsoever." What if I believe everyone is in the wrong? Including DD? Because according to your logic, that's what I should believe, since nobody in the Potterverse upholds the One Right Moral Code: Christ's. Everybody is only upholding their own, human-made, fallible, moral codes, so everybody is in the "wrong". Granted, some come closer to The One Right Moral Code than others, but so what? They are still all "wrong". Or rather, in my view, they are all *right*. "The nature of human interaction is that a person will inevitably think their code is right and everyone else's is wrong, and that other people therefore have an obligation to do what is right." Then I guess I'm not a human being O_o "Is that imposing my moral code on someone else? Absolutely. There is no other way to be a moral person -- which is the same as saying there is no other way to be a person." Just because you can't conceive of another way, doesn't mean nobody else can. Be careful in projecting your own mindset on other people. (I'm not saying I'm not guilty of doing that too, mind you. I'm *trying* not to do it, but I don't always succeed, far from it :-) Del From darqali at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 16:16:37 2005 From: darqali at yahoo.com (darqali) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:16:37 -0000 Subject: Harry and DADA & the "curse" on the position Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140456 A minor comment on a point I have thought for some time: Some, such as Luna, thought it sad that the DA didn't meet again the year after Umbridge had gone; she said she missed the DA meetings, "it was like having friends"; later, only she and Neville turned up to help at the fight against the Death Eaters at the climax if HBP, for it seemed only those two checked their coins regularly in hope of a summons from the D.A. ..... Some readers have commented they wished Harry had gone on teaching the DA too .... But if you believe in the "curse" on the Defense Against the Dark Arts position, then Harry *couldn't* have taught the DA group for a second year .... Think about it. Umbridge is hired as the DADA teacher, but *she doesn't actually teach it*! Instead, she only has students read to themselves from an essentially useless text while seated in her room. No teaching. No real learning of the subject. *Because* Umbridge doesn't actually teach the subject, Hermione suggests the students take matters into their own hands, because they're going to *need* DADA skills in thier lives; she knows LV's back and though things may *seem* O.K., it is the calm before the storm and it is but a matter of time before the WW is again at open war with the Dark Forces of LV. And so at her suggestion, Harry becomes the *real* DADA teacher at Hogwarts for that year {Umbridge having taken the *official* position, and then failing to actually do the job}. Harry may be an *unofficial* teacher; and *unpaid* tacher; but he is the real, if *defacto* DADA teacher for that year at Hogwarts; for that year, Harry is the only one at Hogwarts *actually teaching* Defense Against the Dark Arts. Which means the D.A. won't meet again the following year; since no DADA teacher lasts more than one year. What about the *following* year [subject of Book 7]? Well, we all know Harry says he isn't going back to Hogwarts; but of course, we don't know if that is going to be true, or not, until the book is released. But we can look at Quirrel as an example. When Quirrel is introduced to Harry he is the DADA teacher for Harry's first year; but clearly, not a *new* teacher at Hogwarts, for Hagrid says he "took a year off" to gain some practical experience .... while this remains murky, it seems Quirrel *may* have taught DADA for one year, then took a year off {and met LV in his travels ....} .... Of course, Quirrel may have taught a *different subject* at Hogwarts for any length of time; then taken a year off, and returned to take up a new post as DADA teacher, never having taught that *subject* before, but a simpler reading is, he taught DADA one year, took a year off, and returned in Harry's first year ... So no teacher would have held the post for more than one *consecutive* year ... If that is correct re Quirrel's DADA teaching career, it means if Harry returns to Hogwarts for his 7 th year, he could resume D.A. meetings to arm his fellow students against LV .... so that he would be a "second year" DADA teacher but not for the second *consecutive* year. ***** Happy endings: I am all for a Happy Ending, where Harry and his closest friends survive and LV is vanquished {though of course, only after long struggle and at a high cost ...} I look at the end of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, though ... Some thought the story "ended" when the ring was destroyed. And of course, since Frodo and his three closest companions survived and returned to The Shire, it seemed all should settle down and live happily until the end of their days. [Sam thought the story should end that way.] Yet the end was not so simple. Destroying the Ring came at the a high cost, for some wounds would never heal. Frodo finally left for the Undying Lands, becuse The Shire held no peace for him, damaged as he was in the war with Sauron. Sad. Bittersweet. Like the entire history of the elves. All their lives they "fought the long defeat". So JKR [who *says* she has never read Tolkien's trilogy and *doesn't like* that kind of story] may not have a "happy ever after" ending in mind at all [parallels to Tolkiens' trilogy and her own work being inescapable no matter what she says]. I for one think this *children's series* should have a happy outcome, however. Especially since *teaching* about life and its moral *choices* is what JKR seems to be doing. Hard choices may come at a price, but the reason to make them is the ultimate outcome, which should be essentially *good*. Enough good people have died in the cause against LV to make the point that good people do not always survive. If they *never* do, making the hard choice to do what is right rather than what is easy seems rather pointless. Darqali. From preety_lady_serenity at yahoo.gr Mon Sep 19 16:36:58 2005 From: preety_lady_serenity at yahoo.gr (Katerina) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:36:58 -0000 Subject: Missing pieces. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140457 While readibg the HBP I noticed some aspects that seem to not link with Snape's, as Harry's says, treacherous nature. It seems like we have a rather disoriented puzzle. The Nickname: The nickname: Harry points out in 'White Tomb' "Pure-blood mother, Muggle father... ashamed of his parentage, trying to make himself feared using the Dark Arts, gave himself an impressive new name" Of course Harry refers to the word 'prince' at that moment but I am still not assured on the term 'impressive'. If I am going to examine the wizarding perception of Slytherin it goes like this. Muggle-borns are considered to be mudbloods for they come from a non- magical family. Pure-bloods are from an all-magical lineage. But what are half-bloods? Surely for the Gryffindors like Ron they are something normal but are they for the Slytherins? I do not think so. If I was going to think as a pure-blood, I would be entirely disgusted with the idea of the pure blood of a wizard being mingled with one of a muggle. In fact I would regard a half-blood in lower terms than a mudblood (consider how Hagrid is seen in GoF. Malfoy refers to his half-breed for a long time) Why would Snape name himself Half-Blood, something that the people he associated with would regard it with even more disgust? It simply does not fit with the puzzle. Hermione said that he is proud to be half-a-prince but it does not sound logical to me. I am not sure if Snape would chose a nickname that would make him even more unpopular that he was, just because he is proud of his mother's blood. In addition to that I was struck by some things people disregarded. Harry believes that there is a high probability that Dumbledore never knew of Snape's parentage. I say this probability is very low, at least for me. Imagine of Dumbledore, who had become a Headmaster, seeing the name Snape appearing in Slytherin. The name 'Snape' was never known in the wizarding community, simply because it never existed. I am very reluctant to believe that Dumbledore never checked on Snape's past. Surely he could do nothing than considering this detail very carefully before taking Snape in as a spy. After all Snape had many similarities with Voldemort. Dumbledore has lived to see a lot, he had also defeated a Dark Wizard at the age of 100. I am very reluctant to believe that he took Snape into the Order without eliminate every possiblity that he was helping a Dark WIzard succeed his plans. Yes Dumbledore trusts people but I cannot accept that he was naive. Is Snape Lucius Oldest friend? I am not sure about this for the following reason. In 'Snape's Worst Memory' we see Snape bullied by James Potter and the Marauders. If someone reads the chapter carefully, he will see that Snape is all alone. Someone would expect him to hang out with the rest of the Slytherins when he would finish his exam. Even when he is attacked eveybody laughs with the entire situation. Then Lilly comes to 'his rescue' and he calls her 'mud-blood' At that moment attention shifts towards him. I am of the idea that Snape had never taken a side on the pure-blood/mud-blood issue up to that given moment when he calls Lily 'mublood' I suspect that at that moment Slytherins started noticing Snape as someone that closely equal and begun to accept him for his power in the Dark Arts. Finally the whole repent issue. I have to agree that James Potter was never equivalent for rescue. I was a victim of bullyism from the age of seven until the age of 12 and being cold-blooded honest, I cannot help but feeling that in the situation I will see one of my bulliers walking down the street (now I am 20 years old mind you) I will have to gather all my emotional strenght not to walk towards him and slap him across the face. But what about Lily? If Snape feels so obliged to James, who tormentd him and saved his life once, and looks after Harry in PhS/SS, how obliged does he feel to Lily, who was the only person to defend him when he was all alone? This is another situation that does not fit in my puzzle. I think book seven will show. Kathlin Ps: In a way I hope Snape is not a vilain, since if he proves to be so it will become so one-dimentional. It will be as if Harry was a perfect judge of character from the age of 12. No one is like that. From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Sep 19 16:56:16 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:56:16 -0000 Subject: The handwriting in the book (Was: Lily and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140459 > Valky: > I really don't believe it refutes the canon that DADA is Snape's pet > subject though. If he's to be found delving into theory of subjects > and considering practical applications then the ratio of subjects he's > doing it with is 5:1 DADA:anything else at all. I think we have enough > canon to go with an assumption like that. Magpie: I don't think we do, actually. Snape's textbook is full of notes on Potions and Dark Arts spells. The Dark Arts does seem to be his favorite subject, but he's been connected to advanced Potions a lot as well. So while I do think we're told Snape's greatest love is DADA, I don't think that's reason to think he wasn't responsible for the Potions improvements in his textbook. Perhaps he's better at Potions, in fact. > Valky: > Okay first things first, my initial point is that Perfumery and Snape > are not a match. Perfumery and a popular girl are a match. Simple as > that. That's pretty essentially my argument when it comes to Snapes > sensibilities. Magpie: But it's not necessarily an accurate description of canon at all. Just because peppermint happens to have a nice smell does not mean that it was added to smell pretty. We're told why Snape added it-- to counteract side effects and thus make the potion more effective. You have made a personal connection between pretty, popular girls and aesthetic changes to Potions but it's not proven by anything. A girl can be pretty and popular and have bad taste, or not like the smell of peppermint. Pretty, popular girls may wear perfumes (sometimes too much making them smell bad), but they don't usually manufacture it. In the book the addition of peppermint is presented the same way the Prince's decision to crush beans with a silver knife is presented: it works better because of the magical properties of peppermint. The HBP has an instinctive understanding of Potions that Slughorn wrongly also attributes to Harry. Slughorn also says Lily has this kind of instinctive understanding, but that does not necessarily mean that Snape was copying Lily. As for Snape's having no use for this Potion, can we really know what Potions Snape doesn't have a use for? Harry himself makes this Potion with an eye towards getting Slughorn in the right frame of mind. Malfoy and Nott smirk at the idea of a Love Potion being dangerous, and while that, too, is so far a "girlie" Potion, I wouldn't be too sure it hasn't been used to worse effect by boys or men. Slughorn seems to suggest that no Potion should be dismissed. > Valky: > Well yeah thats a fair enough reason I suppose. But there are other > spells and potions it doesn't seem absoutely necessary. Magpie: But...is there really any point to arguing magical theory, which doesn't really exist? It seems like the book presents these things with an obvious, simple intention there's no reason to ignore. The Prince is shown to have experimented with Potions in the book, period. Snape is also shown to be a very good Potions maker as an adult. I don't think there's any reason, canonically, to assume that there are certain Potions that Snape would or would not use or want to make well because there are charms (foolish wand waving) that do a similar thing. Sometimes a Potion is what you want, I'd guess. You don't have to be there when the person drinks it, for instance. One might as well ask why anyone would charm a teacup to have legs. Or why nobody uses a spell until Harry has learned it, even when it seems like they should have in retrospect. > Valky: > Well hang on, I m finding it hard to get the whole picture. The > schemer would probably need to use some other spell or magic to get > the drinker to do the deeds, right? For the drinker to assume it's > just the potions side effects. In that case why bother so much with a > sweet smelling euphoria with no side effects to begin with. Fake side > effects are just more trouble requiring additional spells. Am I > understanding you? Magpie: I don't think it really matters. There are reasons for a Euphoria Potion. There are also side effects to the Potion that are considered less than desirable. The Half-Blood Prince therefore tweaked the Potion to get rid of them. If the side effects would have been reduced by the addition of pig's urine I'm sure he would have put that in. I think JKR just had to come up with something that sounded scientific but wasn't, and this time it happened to be, "Ah, peppermint--that will reduce the nose-tweaking." Actually, I used to come up with stuff like that for a book series I wrote for. I seem recall claiming that a piece of string provided structural support somewhere. > Valky: > Anyhow, back to the point, what you say above actually construes in my > defense. Harry found no notes on improving Golpalotts laws in the > textbook, the bezoar notation was later in the book scrawled over a > list of general antidotes to poison. Suggesting that Snape himself > didn't consider alternatives to Golpalotts law just to the antidotes > list (probably all for poisons treatable via bezoar), the bezoar as an > alternative to analysis was all Harry, and apparently according to > Slughorn very much the kind of thing Lily would have done. Magpie: But why is that a defense of the idea that Lily had anything to do with Harry's textbook? We know Snape is aware of the properties of a bezoar--he's mentioned it in class and here he's written it in his book on a day he seems to have been bored with his Potions assignment on antidotes. We also know that Snape thinks the study of other antidotes is important--he assigned it in fourth year (hinting he'd be poisoning students as a test). Relying on always having a bezoar around would be foolish, imo. It's just I don't think that Harry coming up with a cheeky way of getting out of doing his work means that it was really Lily who wrote or said, "Just shove a bezoar down their throats." If Snape had written that down in response to the question on Golpalott's Law there would at least be more of a connection drawn with Lily (though even then remember Slughorn doesn't tell us that Lily did what Harry did, he just makes a vague connection between Harry's cheeky Potions joke-answer to Lily always being a good student who was cheeky). As it is it seems to me that the main thing about the scene is the combination of Harry with Snape--Harry is taking Snape's knowledge that a bezoar is a universal antidote(knowledge he's given him in his adult incarnation as well) and using it in a way Snape probably never did when he hasn't the slightest idea how to do something in class. If Harry had tried the bezoar in Snape's class, he would have given him a zero. -m From RoxyElliot at aol.com Mon Sep 19 17:08:29 2005 From: RoxyElliot at aol.com (RoxyElliot at aol.com) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:08:29 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Epilogue.. Message-ID: <87.303d6ba9.30604a8d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140460 In a message dated 9/19/2005 2:46:26 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, smollon at pacbell.net writes: My favorite "ending" is a fast forward to seeing Harry on a Chocolate Frog card as the wizard who vanquished the Evil LV, while sitting in DD's old desk as a head master of Hogwarts :), his days as an Auror long over. I really want Harry to survive (and be happy!), otherwise, I believe the series will lose its charm for me. I like the idea of him being on a chocolate frog card. My guess is that Hermione will have one as well. I think it's more likely that she'll end up at Hogwarts than Harry though. Harry seems like the type who will never be able to sit at a desk for any job. CGG http://Caffeinatedgeekgirl.typepad.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From iluvmuffins at hotmail.com Mon Sep 19 16:47:16 2005 From: iluvmuffins at hotmail.com (bohemian_faith) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:47:16 -0000 Subject: DD planned it all? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140461 I replied to a post saying basically this, and it hasn't appeared yet, and i don't quite know how this works... so I'm just going to try again with a fresh post! I have a theory, mainly because i refuse to believe that Snape is evil, that Dumbledore had planned his own death. It seems that Snape told him of his unbreakable vow with Narcissa, because on the tower, DD seemed to know all about Malfoy's plan to kill him, and I can't think of anybody who would have told him other than Snape. Now, if Snape WAS evil, then I really can't see the logic in telling dumbledore about it... Also! To coincide with another post about why Snape was given the DADA post, perhaps it is because DD if fully aware that being close the the dark arts, and the curse which seems to be on the postition, will bring out the worst in Snape; thus giving him the ability to do what needs to be done. My reasoning (although not strong) behind this is that when Snape and DD were arguing in the forest, snape claims that he 'doesn't want to do it anymore', could this actually be a reference to a plan that he would kill DD when the time comes, to save Malfoy from the fate of darkness? We could see that on the tower, Dumbledore wasn't concerned with his own fate at all (perhaps he was alreay dying, as there are constant references through the series to him appearing weaker and more frail) but more with the fate of Draco. At a SEVERE stretch, I might assume that DD chose to go out that night knowing what would happen, and knowing that drinking the potion would weaken him, allowing for his demise, making him more willing to die. The only problem i can think of atm is that it would have been just as easy for DD to allow one of the other Death Eaters to kill him... but perhaps that is why he was 'pleading' with snape, to kill him before Malfoy tried, knowing that the other DE's would be too afraid? anyway, tha'ts just my little theory! It is flawed in many places :) Bohemian Faith. From vmonte at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 17:54:58 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 17:54:58 -0000 Subject: Conflict, imposition, and morality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140462 Del replies: I'm not. I am convinced that *God*'s code is superior to anybody else's, but that's because He's God. "If I was not so convinced, I would adopt Snape's code and abandon my own." Not me. I would never adopt Snape's code even if I abandoned mine, simply because I know that Snape's code is a painful one. "There IS no objective stance in morality. The only thing that can be done is for everyone to uphold the moral stances they honestly think are correct, which means that, whether they admit it or not, they think everyone who doesn't agree with them is the wrong and needs to mend their ways." I disagree. I do uphold God's moral stance, because He is God, and therefore knows better than any human being. But I try not to judge those who don't know God, I try not to judge their moral codes as being wrong, *because we have no common ground from which to do the judging*. I even defend their right to live by their own rules in their own sphere if they want to, as long as they respect the law. vmonte responds: Del, I'm very confused by your post. I also believe in God, like you, and because I adopt his teachings/code I can most certainly see that Snape's moral ethic/code is wrong. It does not matter whether he has a right to adopt a different code, what matters is if he is adopting the moral code that would place him on the right side. You do agree that it takes a certain sort of person to become a DE, right? It takes someone who is filled with hatred, enjoys inflicting pain on those that are weak or helpless, someone who can easily deny/suppress their emotions, a good liar, someone who is cruel, can murder others, etc. Has Snape adopted the appropriate moral code? Of course it's Snape's right to live immorally, but it should not be dismissed as just a personality quirk. Vivian From manawydan at ntlworld.com Mon Sep 19 18:07:19 2005 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:07:19 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldie's Wand and other details References: <1127078191.2129.79339.m26@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <000801c5bd44$fb9503c0$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 140463 Amiable Dorsai wrote: >But if they had a few terse exchanges--say by Patronus messenger >and/or hastily written notes passed by Fawkes--then the odd mixture of >knowledge and ignorance shown by Dumbledore at Little Whinging is easy >to understand. Possible. Though I wonder whether Hagrid would have needed to say "I got him out all right" if there'd been communication between the two of them. But then Hagrid isn't the most concise of thinkers anyway... >Yeah, that's why I figure Hagrid has to arrive by Apparition or >Portkey. Your point about custody is well-taken, but I think that's >simply another reason why Dumbledore had Hagrid bug out ASAP. It must >have been too late, though. The rumor that Harry had survived was out >before lunchtime. Before breakfast time, in fact. By the time Vernon leaves for work at 8.30, the news has spread far enough that the WW is out on the streets. I can't see things spreading that fast by word of mouth, it must have been on the Wireless and in the Prophet (or one of them at least) >This idea has a lot to recommend it, particularly if all Dumbledore >knows is that there is to be an attack on one or both of the two >possible subjects of the prophecy. He might only have had time to try >to defend one of them, so he flipped a coin and chose the wrong one, >or, assuming he didn't know where the Potters were hidden, he went to >the Longbottoms because he did know where they were hiding--perhaps he >was their Secret Keeper. I lean towards an alternative - if DD's spy finds out that there's going to be an attack, I can't see them withholding the location. Possibly the Longbottoms also went to Godric's that night, as Hagrid's backup - Hagrid _might_, after all, have been arriving in the middle of a nest of Death Eaters if Voldemort had brought his entire posse with him. The theory has the advantage of explaining who reported back to Dumbledore and also who gave the story to the media, and even the reason why the surviving DEs later went after the Longbottoms. >McGonagall's presence at Privet Dive is troubling. Dumbledore >expresses surprise at it, and he is not forthcoming with her about his >real reason--the Blood Protection--for leaving Harry with the Dursleys. quote "Hagrid's late. I suppose it was he who told you I'd be here, by the way?" "Yes", said Professor McGonagall unquote hwyl Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Sep 19 18:24:41 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:24:41 -0000 Subject: Harry's first time in Dumbledore's office In-Reply-To: <005001c5bd1d$947eb400$3e781652@thorburn> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140464 Derek: > I've been thinking a lot lately of Harry's first time in > Dumbledore's office, which was just after he discovered the double > attack of Justin and Nearly Headless Nick. I know Ron > had told him that it was a bad sign among wizards to speak of the > fact that Harry was hearing voices nobody else could hear, but Harry > had just found out that his strange language to the snake at the > duelling club was called parceltongue. It seems to me that > Dumbledore was saying, "Harry, I want to ask you today if you want > to tell me anything. Even if it is unimportant to you, it may be > important to me". Jen: Funny you should mention this scene because I just finished reading that chapter last night. The visit to Dumbledore's office meant so much more after HBP! HBP was full of juicy little tidbits *sighs happily*. Like Snape telling Bellatrix he wondered whether Harry was the new Dark Lord, and how he looked for signs when Harry first appeared at Hogwarts. Reading COS the first time, I didn't pay much attention to students thinking Harry was Heir of Slytherin because it was so obvious he wasn't from the reader's perspective. But having Snape say that made me realize why magical people believed Harry could be evil. That scar cuts both ways, doesn't it? And even Dumbledore was looking for signs of Harry's allegiance from the moment Harry arrived, wondering if his encounter with LV had changed him in some fundamental way. We find out in HBP how very amazed Dumbledore felt that Harry never succumbed to the temptation of the dark arts after all his *very* personal encounters with Voldemort--would Dumbledore have expressed so much amazement if he never wondered and worried about the effects of Harry's encounters with evil? Back to the scene in Dumbledore's office. Dumbledore surely knew Harry spoke Paceltongue by the time of the visit, it happened the day after the dueling club. This information must have been most curious to him. He must have thought back to his first encounter with Riddle, and the excitement 11-year old Riddle felt at being able to talk to snakes. I used to think DD was only searching for clues about the COS when asked Harry that question, but it seems likely he also wondered how in the world Harry could speak Parceltongue if not a descendant of Slytherin. I'd also imagine Dumbledore was starting to wonder if Parceltongue played a role in opening the COS, since the last opening of the chamber coincided with Riddle's years at Hogwarts. Just to clarify here, I do think Harry's bravey & innocence in PS went a long way for convincing Dumbledore of Harry's pure heart, but I don't think *all* his fears were extinguished until Harry called Fawkes & Gryffindor's sword to him in COS. So in the middle of COS, some of Dumbledore's questions may have returned when he heard about the Parceltongue. Putting everything together at the end was when Dumbledore understood Voldemort simply transferred his powers to Harry, and Harry was definitely *not* a Dark Lord in the making. Jen From manawydan at ntlworld.com Mon Sep 19 18:47:50 2005 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:47:50 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Aesthetics in the Potterverse (Was: Lily and Snape) References: <1127116453.3226.46734.m25@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <000801c5bd4a$a3c8c2c0$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 140465 Katherine F. aka puritybrown wrote: >own broad sense of humour. Likewise with aesthetics. She's just not that >interested in writing about beautiful things, or about people appreciating >beauty, or about art. It has the odd effect of making the WW seem very >uncultured and rather flat. Nobody reads novels! Nobody sings, except to >cheer on or discourage a Quidditch team! Likewise with visual art -- Dean is >"good at drawing", but we only find out about this when he draws a banner >for Gryffindor. Does he sketch portraits of his housemates in his spare time? >Maybe, but we'll never know because JKR doesn't care enough to tell us. Perhaps not quite as uncultured as you might think, bearing in mind that the story is set (mostly) in an establishment devoted to the practical side of things - the college of witchcraft and wizardry. If it was set in a RW technical college, I'd expect the background to be equally prosaic. But even so, there are quite a wide range of things in the background. At least three styles of music: chamber music (as enjoyed by Dumbledore), the Weird Systers (who sound like they might be some sort of folk/rock/goth kind of band) and Celestina Warbeck (sloppy lurve songs) - why should not there be others? Portraiture is obviously well developed, a wide range of subjects are described, not just head and shoulders talking ones, as is sculpture, which is described at Hogwarts as well as at the Ministry. No descriptions of literature, certainly (though are all those books at Flourish and Blotts on technical subjects?) but as well as journalism there is satire (in the form of the Quibbler) and autobiography (Lockhart) hwyl Ffred (who shares your thoughts about the school song and is horribly reminded of his own) Na thaereb neb fod Cymru Yng Nghymru dlawd byth mwy Ag ysgol ymhob cwmwd... From rh64643 at appstate.edu Mon Sep 19 19:01:43 2005 From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:01:43 -0000 Subject: The Ending Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140466 truthbeauty1: Some people have been discussing what they believe the happiest outcome for them would be. I think that a very clever ending would have Harry as a DADA teacher, since he beats Voldemort(we hope) why not beat his DADA curse. Ron will get a job on a pro Quiditch team. ( Preferably the Chudley Cannons)I think it would be good if he finally had the spotlight and we have learned that he is really a very good player. I would love to see Hermione become the first Muggle born Minister of magic and push through a lot of reforms. They'll probaby ask Harry and he will be like no, but my friend Hermione is the top in my year. I think Fred and George will remain immensely successful and we will learn that the Weasleys are the last descendents of Gryfindor and that they have always been sooo much better than the Malfoys. Oh and I hope that Percy dies. truthbeauty1 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 20:28:27 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:28:27 -0000 Subject: Why are wizards so incompetent? /Evil Overlords/ Some LOTR In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140467 > Pippin: > You're asking why Jo didn't make Voldie a grounded, reality-based > evil overlord? Have you ever heard of a grounded, reality-based > person who *wanted* to be an evil overlord? Of course not! There > are very dangerous men in the world, to be sure, but unlimited > ambition cannot possibly coexist with a realistic grasp of one's > limitations. Alla: I beg to differ, Pippin. Of course I am not asking for reality based Evil Overlord. That indeed would be asking too much. :-) What I AM asking for though is smarter, scarier, more Evil Evil Overlord and I don't think this is out of realm of possibility at all. JMO of course. The obvious example to me would be LOTR. Now, I would be the first one to argue against unlimited comparisons between books. As I said in the thread on OTC I believe in some areas ( namely character development) JKR is better than Tolkien, but when we talk about Evil, Tolkien's Evil is truly evil. I am scared every time I read about The One. Not because the character himself is scary, but because I don't get a definite sense that the evil would be defeated. Oh, and Saruman, talk about great villain, IMO. Voldie, on the other hand, I said it before, but let me say it again - - does not even come close. The obvious example would be of course Graveyard. to my mind there is no justification of him not killing Harry right away. Zero, none This is especially lauhable in retrospect, IMO. He knows the prophecy and instead of doing the killing right away, he starts talking to his DE about how truly scary he is? HAHA! I will be the first one to say that the situation improved a bit in HBP,since Tom Riddle shows some promise in the scarines and evilness department, but still not enough to my liking. Although if JKR will fulfill my second greatest wish about the ending and will leave Snape to be the villain, then I will take all of it back, of course. Talk about multifaceted villain. That would be fantastic, IMO. Pippin: > And Harry has acted like an idiot, in fact I'm pretty certain > he's acting like an idiot now. Alla: LOL! I agree with the first part of your sentence and definitely disagree with the second one. I think Harry is acting quite smart right now. JMO, Alla. From quigonginger at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 20:42:06 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:42:06 -0000 Subject: Snape's other books Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140468 A random thought just struck me. Now that Snape has gone without having had the chance to pack up, does anyone think that MM will have a go through his belongings (or have the Aurors in the Order do it) in order to look for clues? If his potions book was that interesting, I'd love to see his old DADA book. Too bad a diary is out of character, both for him as a person, and for his work as a spy. That would have been some really interesting reading. Ginger, who was watching/listening to yesterday's Minnesota Vikings game and thought that Mewelde Moore sounded like Voldemort when the announcers said it. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Sep 19 20:44:31 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:44:31 -0000 Subject: Hagrid in GH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140469 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: Ceridwen: > Not sure what to clip, so I kept it all. At least, it's short! > > But, I'm wondering, what about the school? The headmaster and deputy > headmistress, which also means the Transfiguration teacher, are > notably missing from the school. Since Vernon went to work, I'd > think it was a weekday and not a weekend. Who took over McGonagall's > class while she was reading the paper on the corner of Privet Drive? Geoff: It was certainly a weekday. "When Mr. and Mrs. Dursley woke up on the dull, grey Tuesday our story starts..." (PS "The Boy Who Lived" p.7 UK edition) So the attack was on the Monday night. Obviously the news had spread overnight because Professor McGonagall was in Privet Drive by 08:30. Dumbledore didn't arrive until nearly midnight. I am surprised that the news reached Hogwarts so quickly. I must admit, I'd never considered the school having a day off but McG must have been out of the building going like the clappers to reach Little Whinging by that time in the morning. From entropymail at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 20:56:17 2005 From: entropymail at yahoo.com (entropymail) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:56:17 -0000 Subject: Snape's other books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140470 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" wrote: > A random thought just struck me. > > Now that Snape has gone without having had the chance to pack up, does > anyone think that MM will have a go through his belongings (or have > the Aurors in the Order do it) in order to look for clues? > Too bad a diary is out of character, both for him as a person, and for > his work as a spy. That would have been some really interesting > reading. > I agree that, as a spy, it certainly wouldn't do for Snape to be jotting down random thoughts. However, as a lonely, angst-ridden teen, it would make perfect sense for Snape to retreat to his little internal world through his writing. I'd love to see more of Snape's writing (beyond that in his old Potions textbook), and certainly look forward to greater insight into his character in Book 7. Going back to lurking... :: Entropy :: Visit my Online Portfolio at: www.geocities.com/entropymail From ibchawz at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 21:41:40 2005 From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:41:40 -0000 Subject: JKR's idea of horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140471 Auria wrote: > Something that I have been wondering (nothing really to do with the HP > plot but very relevant all the same) is where did JKR get the idea of > horcruxes? I mean its a very unusual concept - to split one's soul > and 'keep' a piece in a separate place to gain immortality - and I > wonder if JKR had gotten this idea from any other literature somewhere > or if its entirely unique? Just my curiosity really, but does anyone > have any thoughts about this? Afterall, its a very creepy idea isn't > it! > Auria ibchawz responds: I'm not sure of the mythical basis for this concept, but I have read a similar concept in Fred Saberhagen's "Swords" series of books. In the books, demons place their "life" in an inanimate object. The demons could only be destroyed if the object containing their life was destroyed. This is different from the horcruxes in that destroying the object is what would destroy the demon and each demon only had one life object. In the "Swords" series, demons could be controlled through fear and/or intimidation if a person knew what object the demon's life was held in. If the person actually had possession of the object and would threaten to destroy it, this control was extremely strong. ibchawz From Meliss9900 at aol.com Mon Sep 19 21:49:20 2005 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 17:49:20 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why are wizards so incompetent? /Evil Overlords/ Some LOTR Message-ID: <193.4870a090.30608c60@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140472 In a message dated 9/19/2005 3:31:03 PM Central Standard Time, dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com writes: Pippin: > And Harry has acted like an idiot, in fact I'm pretty certain > he's acting like an idiot now. Alla: LOL! I agree with the first part of your sentence and definitely disagree with the second one. I think Harry is acting quite smart right now. JMO, Ok I'm intrigued. Pippin, why do you think that Harry is acting like an idiot now. I agree that he has had his idiotic moments but I don't think he was having one when last we saw him. Melissa [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From BrwNeil at aol.com Mon Sep 19 21:56:48 2005 From: BrwNeil at aol.com (BrwNeil at aol.com) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 17:56:48 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Epilogue.. Message-ID: <140.4c51cd5c.30608e20@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140473 In a message dated 9/19/2005 1:09:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, RoxyElliot at aol.com writes: I like the idea of him being on a chocolate frog card. My guess is that Hermione will have one as well. I think it's more likely that she'll end up at Hogwarts than Harry though. Harry seems like the type who will never be able to sit at a desk for any job. JKR once said that Harry wasn't cut out to be a professor, but that someone would end up on the staff and not the person we'd expect. Well, I think we'd all expect Hermione. Since it isn't going to be her, my money is on Neville. Neil [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 22:19:07 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:19:07 -0000 Subject: Hagrid in GH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140474 Geoff wrote: >So the attack was on the Monday night. Obviously the news had >spread overnight because Professor McGonagall was in Privet Drive >by 08:30. Dumbledore didn't arrive until nearly midnight. I am >surprised that the news reached Hogwarts so quickly. I must admit, >I'd never considered the school having a day off but McG must have >been out of the building going like the clappers to reach Little >Whinging by that time in the morning. Saraquel: I think there could be a very simple explanation as to why everything happened near midnight, rather than earlier. The cover of darkness. We don't know what time the deed happened, but it must have taken time for DD to formulate his plan, which would have taken at least until first light. They knew that even if Voldemort was out of the picture, there were still DEs out there, and secrecy and security were paramount. So as when the Order picked up Harry from Privet Drive to take him to 12 GP, they did it under cover of darkness. Though why they didn't use side-along apparition, I don't know. Maybe there is an age limit for it, I can't imagine that a baby would take very kindly to having their ears pushed into their head. Hagrid could well have laid low in the Welsh valleys (sparsley populated countryside) during the day and set off after light fell. If it took him 4 or 5 hours, that would get him to Privet Drive late evening. McGonagall could have left Hogwarts at 08.15, walked to the school gates and apparated to Privet Drive by 08.30. As an aside, how do you apparate to a place you have never been to before and don't know what it looks like. What exactly do you fix in your head as you spin? Saraquel From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Sep 19 22:53:23 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:53:23 -0000 Subject: Why are wizards so incompetent? /Evil Overlords/ Some LOTR In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140475 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" > Alla: > > I beg to differ, Pippin. Of course I am not asking for reality based Evil Overlord. That indeed would be asking too much. :-) > > What I AM asking for though is smarter, scarier, more Evil Evil > Overlord and I don't think this is out of realm of possibility at > all. JMO of course. > > The obvious example would be of course Graveyard. to my mind there > is no justification of him not killing Harry right away. Zero, none Pippin: LOL! Of course Sauron is scarier than Voldemort. Sauron is an age old entity that was never human, Voldemort is a tinpot dictator with a magic wand. But with far less excuse Sauron makes the exact same mistake in LOTR. Imrahil even comments on it -- "So might a child threaten a mail-clad knight with a bow of string and green willow! If the Dark Lord knows as much as you say, Mithrandir, will he not rather smile than fear, and with his little finger crush us like a fly that tries to sting him? "No, he will try to trap the fly and take the sting," said Gandalf. "And there are names among us that are worth more than a thousand mail-clad knights apiece. No, he will not smile." -- Sauron didn't have to take Aragorn's challenge seriously. Voldemort didn't have to give Harry back his wand. Their fear drove them to it -- it's hard to explain to a sane person, but Aragorn tried: "He is not so mighty yet that he is above fear; nay, doubt ever gnaws him" As did Dumbledore: "Have you any idea how much tyrants fear the people they oppress? All of them realize that, one day, among their many victims, there is sure to be one who rises against them and strikes back! Voldemort is no different." Voldemort, like Sauron, knows only fear. He cannot truly conquer his fear, he can only deny it. In denial of that fear, he hands his enemy weapons. It is not just a plot device in fantasy novels, it is the way tyrants have actually destroyed themselves. It's not stupidity that makes them underestimate their enemies. It's fear. Pippin From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 22:56:30 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:56:30 -0000 Subject: Harry, Snape and James (was:Re: Sadistic!Snape?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140476 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Whenever Snape brought up James it was usually (IIRC) when Harry > > was doing something colossally stupid, like sneaking into > > Hogsmeade when there was a mass murderer out for his blood. > > Snape, with good reason (especially after reading some of > > Sirius's "advice"), was trying to turn Harry away from emulating > > his father. Snape chose a piss-poor way of going about it, I > > grant. But again, I see a reason for his behavior. Enjoyment > > of Harry's suffering wasn't it, IMO. > Alla: > How does Snape try to stop Harry from emulating his father? By > insulting him? Then he has no understanding of human psychology, > period, IMO. > Betsy Hp: This post got me thinking, Alla. Because you're right. For Snape to attack James in such a fashion is an incredibly foolish way for him to try and stop Harry from following James's lead. So why does he do it? I went pouring through the first three books and I realised something. The very first time Snape ever brings up James is in PoA when Harry's head is spotted in Hogsmeade, when (as Snape helpfully reminds us) no part of Harry's body has permission to be in Hogsmeade. (PoA hardback p.283) As far as Harry is concerned sneaking out to Hogsmeade is a lark. The fact that he doesn't have permission is the result of unfair rules and a paranoia over his safety. But for the adults around him, his sneaking off school grounds is an entirely different matter. They realize that a mass murder, powerful enough to escape from Azkaban, and with the sole goal of seeing Harry dead, is out there somewhere. In fact, Sirius has already broken into Hogwarts twice, once all the way into Harry's bedchamber (ibid p.161 & p.266). The situation is dire. For Snape is must seem especially bad because he honestly thinks Lupin is helping Sirius. I do think Snape is fairly perceptive when he wants to be, and I'm sure he sensed some of Lupin's guilt. (And Lupin *was* feeling guilty. He knew how Sirius was going about undetected and yet he told no one [ibid p.356).) Plus, Harry was spending an awful lot of free time with Lupin. Snape must have worried about Harry and Lupin being alone together. Snape had also just caught Harry hanging around the one-eyed witch (ibid p.277) and while he doesn't seem to know how the witch works, he certainly seems to suspect *something* about it. I think it's not too out of bounds to suppose that he'd followed the Marauders a time or two to that hallway, only to have them disappear on him. So Snape catches Harry acting in an incredibly stupid fashion, following a path taken by his father before him. Harry is saying nothing. Actually, Harry is thinking (correctly I think) that, "Snape was trying to provoke him into telling the truth." (ibid p. 284) But nothing is working, so Snape brings up James in the most insulting manner possible. Why? Now that we know a bit about legilmency and occulmency the answer seems somewhat obvious, IMO. Snape is trying to jolt Harry into thinking about his father, possibly in connection with Lupin. Just as he prompted Harry to think about his potions textbook in HBP, Snape is trying to prompt Harry into thinking about instructions given to him by Lupin. Of course, Lupin had nothing to do with Harry sneaking into Hogsmeade so Snape doesn't find what he's looking for. (Though he does zero in on the Map quite quickly, so his detective work isn't *completely* in vain.) It wasn't nice for Snape to talk about James in such a manner to Harry. And it certainly wasn't a good way to turn Harry's affections away from James. But it was a good way for a legilmentor to draw specific thoughts to the surface. And, if Snape's suspicions had been true, it was a good way to protect Harry from an evil influence. > >>Alla: > Oh, and here of course we have that little unpleasant fact that > Snape is complicit in James death, so insulting him in front of > the child whom Snape helped to become an orphan in retrospect is > not just sadistic , it is to me despicable to the extreme AND > makes me doubt that Snape has any remorse about delivering > prophecy to Voldemort. > Betsy Hp: You're right, of course. It was very bad form for Snape to speak of James at all, especially in such a manner. However, I think the *motive* for Snape's behavior was good. I think Snape was genuinely trying to keep Harry safe. And keeping his son safe actually *honors* James, and shows a genuine remorse, I think. Betsy Hp From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 19 22:58:32 2005 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:58:32 -0000 Subject: Missing pieces. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140477 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com "Katerina" (Message 140457) >Harry believes that there is a high probability that Dumbledore >never knew of Snape's parentage. I say this probability >is very low, at least for me. Imagine of Dumbledore, who had >become a Headmaster, seeing the name Snape appearing in Slytherin. >The name 'Snape' was never known in the wizarding community, simply >because it never existed. I am very reluctant to believe that >Dumbledore never checked on Snape's past. "K": Katerina, I believe what Harry cannot understand is how Dumbledore could have missed the parallels between Voldemort and Snape. How Dumbledore could have had so much trust in Snape due to those similarities. I don't believe Harry is wondering if Dumbledore knew of Snape's parentage. Snape's birth was public record and Eileen Prince was a student at Hogwarts. Dumbledore would surely know the mother of Snape. ---------------------------------------------------------------- "Well...yes," said Hermione. "So...I was sort of right. Snape must have been proud of being 'half a Prince,' you see? Tobias Snape was a muggle from what it said in the Prophet." "Yeah, that fits," said Harry. "He'd play up the pure-blood side so he could get in with Lucius Malfoy and the rest of them...He's just like Voldemort. Pure-blood mother, Muggle father...ashamed of his parentage, trying to make himself feared using the Dark Arts, gave himself an impressive new name--Lord Voldemort -- the Half-Blood Prince -- how could Dumbledore have missed --?" He broke off, looking out the window. He could not stop himself dwelling upon Dumbledore's inexcusable trust in Snape... hbp-ch 30-pg 637/us --------------------------------------------------------------- "Katerina" >Ps: In a way I hope Snape is not a vilain, since if he proves to be >so it will become so one-dimentional. It will be as if Harry was a >perfect judge of character from the age of 12. No one is like that. "K": Well, I agree with you but since this story is about Harry and his friends, I definitely see the author heading in the direction of almost perfect Harry. I wish I had time to comment more on some of the other points you made. For now I'll just say I believe Lily was the one who gave Snape his nickname. And for the record, I don't like an unrequited Snape/Lilly connection AT ALL. Just so you know that it is not wishful thinking on my part. :-) From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 22:59:23 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:59:23 -0000 Subject: Harry's first time in Dumbledore's office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140478 Jen wrote: >Like Snape >telling Bellatrix he wondered whether Harry was the new Dark Lord, >and how he looked for signs when Harry first appeared at Hogwarts. >Reading COS the first time, I didn't pay much attention to students >thinking Harry was Heir of Slytherin because it was so obvious he >wasn't from the reader's perspective. But having Snape say that made >me realize why magical people believed Harry could be evil. That >scar cuts both ways, doesn't it? > >And even Dumbledore was looking for signs of Harry's allegiance from >the moment Harry arrived, wondering if his encounter with LV had >changed him in some fundamental way. Saraquel: IMO, this also provides us with a reason why DD might have chosen the Dursleys, over and above the blood charm protection. DD could not have known what the outcome of the encounter with Voldemort meant for Harry, imediately after the event, so he had to choose something which would suit all eventualities - good or bad. If DD knew the attitude of the Dursleys towards magic, which I think he probably did, whether or not you go along with the theroy that Petunia is actually a witch who decided not to go to Hogwarts, then he was putting Harry in a place where his magical abilities would be squashed and definitely not be encouraged early in his life. He had seen with Riddle what the early discovery of power had done to him. In a magical family, there was more of a danger that if Harry did turn out to be the next evil overlord, his exposure to magic at an early age, might have led him into trouble. Saraquel From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 23:05:48 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 23:05:48 -0000 Subject: Snape's future (Was: Snape's other books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140479 Ginger wrote: > Now that Snape has gone without having had the chance to pack up, does > anyone think that MM will have a go through his belongings (or have > the Aurors in the Order do it) in order to look for clues? > > If his potions book was that interesting, I'd love to see his old DADA > book. > > Too bad a diary is out of character, both for him as a person, and for > his work as a spy. That would have been some really interesting > reading. Carol responds: I've been wondering the same thing. I'm sure the Aurors will search his office (and Spinner's End, if they can find it) quite thoroughly. What will they find? All sorts of useful potions, I'm sure, from Veritaserum to the Draught of Living Death. But they'll probably have to be confiscated and not put to use. Too bad! Snape's DADA lesson plans would be interesting, too. But I've also been thinking of what Snape is going to do now. Whether he's the murdering traitor he appears to be in a surface reading or DD's man through and through, he's lost his job, many of his possessions, his salary for that year, his position in the Order, his respectability, his freedom. He can't show up in Diagon Alley or Hogsmeade or he'll be arrested. If the Aurors question Narcissa Malfoy (and I'll bet they will since Draco is an accessory to murder as well as being guilty of attempted murder and various other crimes), she could give away Snape's hiding place. Unless he has someplace else to go (the Prince family home?), he'll have to stay in the Riddle House with Voldemort and the rat. That's assuming that Voldemort has any further use for him now that Dumbledore is dead. His "useful role as spy" (for either side) is certainly gone. Regardless of what he himself wants to do (I happen to think it's help to bring down Voldemort, which is more than a bit difficult in his present circumstances), he's trapped by the consequences of his own actions (on the tower and at Spinner's End). What happens next? Is he still bound by the vow to protect Draco, even though Draco is now a "man," having turned seventeen on June 5? Will he become involved in a plot to rescue the DEs from Azkaban (and maybe sway their allegiance away from Voldemort)? Will he find a way to communicate with the Order if he can still conjure a Patronus? Sure, he's clever and he can probably elude the Aurors by Apparating, but he has to live somewhere. Even if he has gold (rewarded by Narcissa or Voldemort), he can't spend it--or send PP, another wanted man, to spend it for him. And AFAWK, he isn't an Animagus or Metamorphmagus, so in a way he's even worse off than Sirius Black in GoF. (I know the Sirius fans think that's only fair, but I'm not concerned about fairness or Snape's character traits/morality here.) I think JKR plans to give Snape an important role (one crucial scene, at least) in Book 7, but how can she keep him safe and alive till then? Does anyone have any ideas (at least remotely supportable by canon so we won't be sent to OTChatter by the Elvses) as to what Snape is likely to do next (assuming that he's not immediately killed or sent to Azkaban, in which case his fate is a nonissue)? Will he stay at Spinner's End with Peter (surely a risky proposition), move in with Voldy, share a cozy hideaway with Bellatrix in that secret room under the drawing room in the Malfoy manor, fly to Egypt on Buckbeak? (Just joking on that last one.) One thing's for sure--even if he doesn't feel remorse for killing DD (and I think he already feels it), he's going to regret what the loss of his security, safety, and freedom. Carol, really wondering how JKR can pull off Snape's survival, which is crucial to his confrontation with Harry and to his redemption (if it happens) From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Sep 19 23:33:05 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 23:33:05 -0000 Subject: Facilis descensus Averni---Snape's little problems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140480 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ericoppen" wrote: > It occurs to me that a big part of what ails Snape is that he's been > mixed up with the Dark Arts for so long. In many (most? I am no > scholar of the occult) magical and magickal traditions, those who > palter with evil for easy power pay a price. While the power comes > easily, much more easily than it does on the "good" side of things, > there are always side-effects, and nasty ones. > Which brings us to everybody's favorite puzzle character, Severus > Snape. We are informed that he knew more "curses" when he got to > Hogwarts than many seventh-year students---what does this tell us > about the sort of magic he had been swotting up on his own? Not to > mention the ones he invented---the one Harry used on Malfoy, forex. > _Not_ nice magic at all. > Pippin: I've been waiting for someone else to bring this up but no one has, so I'll jump in. Do we know that Dark Arts are *still* Snape's favorite subject? Or was he only pretending that he lusted after the DADA job because he was pretending he was still a DE? Or is it that he's really always been better at potions than at DADA, but he has yet to learn this about himself? Was Snape more into developing dark spells as a hobby than he was into potions? Harry flat out denied it -- until he found out the book had belonged to Snape. Then of course, he saw sinister intent on every page. But was it really there, or was that Harry's own personal version of vampire!Snape? What was so sinister about muffliato? And levicorpus was tolerated, according to Lupin, unlike spells that, say, swelled the victim's head to twice normal size. Harry didn't seem to find that spell in his book, but James and Sirius knew it. The only _not_ nice spell in the Prince's book that we have any direct evidence of is Sectum Sempra. And I have a feeling it's been tamed. What spell did Snape use when he slashed his wand and Harry felt like "a white-hot whiplike something hit him across the face" that left no blood or scar behind? Was that sectum sempra lite? AFAWK, Snape's never been wrong about a potion, but he has been wrong, twice, about DADA. Once with that mistake about kappas in PoA, and again in HBP where he disagrees with Harry about how to fight dementors. I think he's always been better at potions than at DADA, but Dark Wizards (and Aurors) get way more recognition and prestige than potion makers, even brilliant ones. As Snape says, many people hardly believe potion making is magic. So if you want a rep as a badass wizard, potion-making is not the field for you. As I've said, I think it's recognition Snape was addicted to, more than Dark Arts. I think as part of his agreement with Dumbledore he had to refrain from publishing his improvements to the potions texts (though he was allowed to teach them) and perhaps to let someone else take the credit for the wolfsbane potion. This had the dual effect of preserving the illusion that Dumbledore did not quite trust Snape (useful, for example, so that Voldemort did not try to get *Snape* to steal the stone for him) and teaching Snape to appreciate himself for who he is, instead of what others thought of him. The person who's made the Faustian bargain with the Dark Arts, IMO, is that anti-villain Remus Lupin. But we'll see. Pippin From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Sep 19 23:47:29 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 23:47:29 -0000 Subject: Snape's future (Was: Snape's other books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140481 Carol: > Does anyone have any ideas (at least remotely supportable by canon so > we won't be sent to OTChatter by the Elvses) as to what Snape is > likely to do next (assuming that he's not immediately killed or sent > to Azkaban, in which case his fate is a nonissue)? Will he stay at > Spinner's End with Peter (surely a risky proposition), move in with > Voldy, share a cozy hideaway with Bellatrix in that secret room under > the drawing room in the Malfoy manor, fly to Egypt on Buckbeak? (Just > joking on that last one.) > > One thing's for sure--even if he doesn't feel remorse for killing DD > (and I think he already feels it), he's going to regret what the loss > of his security, safety, and freedom. Ceridwen: Tenuous link to canon: Snape is a half-blood. I think it's possible that he might try and hide in the Muggle world. He should know something about it, if his father remained in the home after the big blow-up we witnessed during Harry's Occlumency lessons (I think the blow-up might have been when TS found out Son&Heir was a wizard-child, same as TRsr, and Mr. Finnegan). He would have Muggle relations who might take him in, but, given a relatively Muggle upbringing, he would at least know how to operate in that world. And, since he lived in a 'Muggle dunghill' (per Bellatrix), it's reasonable to suspect that someone with his position as double-agent would have set up a false identity in the Muggle world already, complete with bank account and papers he would need. He wouldn't need to remain at Spinner's End, then, he could take up a room in a boarding house and get a job at a chemist's/pharmacy, or with some company that does chemical (non-medical or medical) research, or medical technician, or garbage man. And, being the torn soul that I am, I also think that his panic in Flight of the HBP could have signalled that he believed he was going to die, or even felt the physical beginnings, of his death. That would all depend on what really happened on the Tower, if there was anything beyond what we witnessed. So, it could all be a moot point. Yes, I think McG will need to go through his things, and so will the Aurors or someone from the DMLE. They'll have to look for evidence of where he may have gone, and MM will have to clean out his quarters for a new resident. Ceridwen. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 20 00:05:18 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:05:18 -0000 Subject: Snape's other books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140482 Ginger wrote: > > Now that Snape has gone without having had the chance to pack > > up, does anyone think that MM will have a go through his > > belongings (or have the Aurors in the Order do it) in order to > > look for clues? Too bad a diary is out of character.... Entropy replied: > I agree that, as a spy, it certainly wouldn't do for Snape to be > jotting down random thoughts. However, as a lonely, angst-ridden > teen, it would make perfect sense for Snape to retreat to his > little internal world through his writing. SSSusan: Good point, Entropy -- the *younger* Snape might well have been more inclined to have written in a journal. Question, though: would adult Snape be inclined to *keep* such writings? But I hope Ginger is right! I hope McGonagall DOES go through Snape's belongings and finds some really great stuff. For one thing, I *missed* Minerva in HBP. I'd gotten used to an ever-larger role for her in the most recent books, and the lack of her presence/influence in HBP frustrated me. Now... if she just finds something nice & juicy... and runs off to Portrait!DD to discuss it... wouldn't that be fun? :-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From jmrazo at hotmail.com Tue Sep 20 00:10:40 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:10:40 -0000 Subject: Why are wizards so incompetent? (Was Face it, there is a reward for being nice ( In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140483 > Amiable Dorsai: > I don't think it's a copout, I think it's central to the background of > the story. People who are raised in a world where 2+2 is sometimes 4 > and sometimes whatever you need it to be, and where you can easily > pour a gallon-and-a-half out of a 1-quart jug, are going to have a > different sort of logic than you and I. It would be wrong if Wizards > and Witches, especially purebloods, thought and acted precisely like > Muggles--particularly if they live lives deliberately isolated from > Muggles. You have a point, but I think what is being thrown around as incompetence is stuff like their storm trooper like aim in the department of mysteries, the laughably bad tactics of both the death eaters and Dumbledore (Hermione out manuevers DD for gods sake!). Sure it's funny when Ron can't say electricity or wizards can't coordinate their clothes, but that stuff makes sense because of what your saying. What doesn't make sense is their sheer inability to act like trained wizards when we know what they should be capable of, especially when arrayed against some children. Yes, it is a convention of the genre but normally, thats handled by making the child in question more skilled, not makin the adults total incompetents. it stretches credulity the way JKR does it. phoenixgod2000 From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 20 00:26:04 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:26:04 -0000 Subject: Hagrid in GH (the missing 24 hours) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140484 Saraquel: > Hagrid could well have laid low in the Welsh valleys (sparsley > populated countryside) during the day and set off after light fell. > If it took him 4 or 5 hours, that would get him to Privet Drive late > evening. SSSusan: Ahem. At the risk of annoying the longer-term members of this board, may I remind you that there *is* at least one theory out there about the missing 24 hours which has parties more actively *doing* things during the 24 hours, rather than just lying low (though I'll grant lying low is definitely a possibility). And the theory hasn't been debunked by HBP. Well... at least, as long as one comes out of HBP still believing in DDM!Snape, it hasn't been debunked.... Anyway, it's called DRIBBLE SHADOWS, and the gist of it is that the 24 hours was filled with a bit of a side trip by Hagrid w/ Baby Harry, to wherever Snape was at the time, and that he (Snape) provided some additional protection for Harry before Hagrid continued on to Little Whinging. My contention is that DD did not truly believe Voldy to be gone for good, and he wanted to do *anything* he could to provide additinal protection for Harry. One thing I like about this theory is that it nicely explains why both DD & Hagrid have always *trusted* Snape. For anyone interested: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/128717 ... and following (particularly 128778, 128795 & 128892). Siriusly Snapey Susan, waving to crewmates Jen, Potioncat & Kaylee From rytal at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 20 00:29:42 2005 From: rytal at yahoo.co.uk (Auria) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:29:42 -0000 Subject: Lily and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140485 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lyraofjordan" wrote: > > Auria wrote: > > There is a good debate going on in these posts as to whether we > > beleive that Lily was good at potions or whether Slughorn was over- > > praising her for whatever reason. One bit of canon evidence that has > > not yet been given previously is the quote from PoA by Lupin. He did > > tell Harry that Lily was a 'singularly gifted witch'. That would > > suggest that Slughorn's appraisal of her is accurate. > > > > > Lyra remains out of the main debate here but notes that Lupin's quote, > while a lovely sentiment, was never spoken by Lupin in the book; it was > instead penned by the screenwriter of the film version. > > > Lyra. Hi Lyra Yes it seems you are right and that line was for the film (I had to go back and check the book), so I stand corrected. However I have seen interviews for the films with JKR and the screenwriter together, and they seem to work closely together, so I'm sure JKR would have known about that line and has allowed it. Thats kind of secondary canon sort of?? Anyway I still like to beleive Slughorn that Lily was a clever potions student... Auria From msbeadsley at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 00:39:23 2005 From: msbeadsley at yahoo.com (msbeadsley) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:39:23 -0000 Subject: Conflict, imposition, and morality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140486 I was going to respond Del off-line because I didn't think I was going to go into canon, but then I did, and so turned this into an on-list post, which I'm still not sure is a good idea, but oh, well... Lupinlore wrote: "I am totally convinced that my moral code is superior to Snape's." Del replies: I'm not. I am convinced that *God*'s code is superior to anybody else's, but that's because He's God. Me: But the only information you have about God's code was passed on by "anybody else" (IMO), and is therefore suspect; there is no way to know it isn't actually "anybody else's" code. There is no empirical evidence I know of for any deity's existence or for the tenets of any religion outside the humans who compiled/composed/received them. Lupinlore wrote: "If I was not so convinced, I would adopt Snape's code and abandon my own." Del replies: Not me. I would never adopt Snape's code even if I abandoned mine, simply because I know that Snape's code is a painful one. Me: Are you saying that it pains Snape, or that it would pain you? Lupinlore wrote: "There IS no objective stance in morality. The only thing that can be done is for everyone to uphold the moral stances they honestly think are correct, which means that, whether they admit it or not, they think everyone who doesn't agree with them is the wrong and needs to mend their ways." Del replies: I disagree. I do uphold God's moral stance, because He is God, and therefore knows better than any human being. But I try not to judge those who don't know God, I try not to judge their moral codes as being wrong, *because we have no common ground from which to do the judging*. I even defend their right to live by their own rules in their own sphere if they want to, as long as they respect the law. Me: But the law has its basis in codes that go back to God as well; so then, why is it necessary that "those who don't know God" respect the law? Lupinlore wrote: "But the very point of having laws and rules, the only possible purpose for them, in fact, is to force people to do what is morally right whether they want to do it or not, and whether they agree with the assessment of what is right or not." Del replies: Yes, to force them to do what is morally right *according to the morality of the majority*, not necessarily according to their own morality. There is NO obligation for anyone to *adopt* the majority's morality, there's only an obligation to *respect* it in a few circumstances. Big difference. Me: There is no obligation for anyone to even respect the majority's morality, IMO. There are only various consequences if they don't. An obligation only exists if the person in question adopts the majority's morality, even if they only do so in the sense of trying to use them to modify *others'* behavior. Once they buy in, they're stuck. IMO. Lupinlore wrote: "One can say that Dumbledore is not a High King and Snape has no legal obligation to obey him, but that is evading the point." Del replies: Not at all. It's refusing to face that fact that is evading the point, IMO. Snape simply has NO obligation to adopt anyone's moral code, period. As long as he respects the law, he's free to act in whatever way he wants. That's what *freedom* is about. Me: Snape is furious, AFAWK, when Harry invades his privacy (memories in the Pensieve). Privacy is part of a moral/social code outside of law. Snape insists on other respectful forms as well; IMO, once he demands that others adhere to a code of moral/social conduct, he obligates himself as well. It is one thing to refuse to adhere to a code if the reason is that you do not recognize it as correct or relevant or useful; once you do, if you ignore it at only at your own convenience, then, IMO, you are morally in error. Inherently. Regardless of the code in question. Lupinlore wrote: "The point is who you believe is in the right. If you believe that DD is in the right, then Snape absolutely has a moral obligation to adapt himself to DD's moral code -- whether Snape agrees with the code is of no importance whatsoever." Del replies: What if I believe everyone is in the wrong? Including DD? Because according to your logic, that's what I should believe, since nobody in the Potterverse upholds the One Right Moral Code: Christ's. Everybody is only upholding their own, human-made, fallible, moral codes, so everybody is in the "wrong". Granted, some come closer to The One Right Moral Code than others, but so what? They are still all "wrong". Or rather, in my view, they are all *right*. Me: "The One Right Moral Code" changes from country to country and believer to believer. There is no absolute code, even in any scripture on the planet, IMO (because all the ones I know anything about have self-contradictions within). Lupinlore wrote: "The nature of human interaction is that a person will inevitably think their code is right and everyone else's is wrong, and that other people therefore have an obligation to do what is right." Del replies: Then I guess I'm not a human being O_o Me: Of course you are, Del, or you wouldn't be debating this point with Bob. Just the fact that you are here in print actually supports his point. IMO. ;-) Lupinlore: "Is that imposing my moral code on someone else? Absolutely. There is no other way to be a moral person -- which is the same as saying there is no other way to be a person." Del: Just because you can't conceive of another way, doesn't mean nobody else can. Be careful in projecting your own mindset on other people. (I'm not saying I'm not guilty of doing that too, mind you. I'm *trying* not to do it, but I don't always succeed, far from it :-) Me: Personally, I recognize no deity; on the other hand, the idea of life under no code or law strikes me as terrifying and appalling. I want to live in a world where people balance their own wants and needs against the wants and needs of others. I consider it a kind of social barter system; I believe people grant each other rights because they want to have some themselves, and, essentially, there is constant and infinite bargaining going on. I think the need for religion will eventually go the path of the appendix, if the race survives long enough. I'd like to see Homo Sapiens grow up enough to no longer need celestial mommies and daddies. I want to believe in people, and have people believe in themselves and each other. Sandy aka msbeadsley, hoping she hasn't broken the rules here more egregiously than anybody else... From rytal at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 20 00:45:30 2005 From: rytal at yahoo.co.uk (Auria) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:45:30 -0000 Subject: Happy Endings WAS Harry and DADA & the "curse" on the position In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140487 > So JKR [who *says* she has never read Tolkien's trilogy and *doesn't > like* that kind of story] may not have a "happy ever after" ending in > mind at all [parallels to Tolkiens' trilogy and her own work being > inescapable no matter what she says]. > > I for one think this *children's series* should have a happy outcome, > however. Especially since *teaching* about life and its moral > *choices* is what JKR seems to be doing. Hard choices may come at a > price, but the reason to make them is the ultimate outcome, which > should be essentially *good*. Enough good people have died in the > cause against LV to make the point that good people do not always > survive. If they *never* do, making the hard choice to do what is > right rather than what is easy seems rather pointless. > > > Darqali. I agree with you Darqali. The Harry Potter series would seem rather pointless if Harry loses the battle against LV, not to mention the countless number of readers (children and adults alike) who would probably want to throttle JKR if such an ending occurred!! JKR does like to tease her readers (for example she kept mentioning that the opening chapter to HBP originated 13 years ago, so we all thought it was going to be something major. But 'the other minister' subplot between the prime minister and MoM never really went anywhere after the opening chapter). In fact I wish she wouldn't make such comments because it just heightens the fans' expectations. Well we can only sit back and wait to see what 'delights' book seven brings us. Personally I also hope book seven satisfactorily explains and concludes the many loose ends still left hanging, as well as the happy ending we are all hoping for. And no more deaths please!! I think HP fans have mourned enough! Auria (who likes to find the silver lining after the clouds....) From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Sep 20 01:04:30 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 01:04:30 -0000 Subject: Snape's future (Was: Snape's other books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140488 Ceridwen: > Tenuous link to canon: Snape is a half-blood. > > I think it's possible that he might try and hide in the Muggle > world. houyhnhnm: Your suggestion that Snape might hide out in the Muggle world made me think of one of the only pieces of fan fiction I've really liked: Snape in Therapy. Read it if you haven't done so already. It's a hoot. http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Azazello/Therapy/ I haven't given a lot of thought to where Snape is going to hide out. After all, it's going to be a couple of years for us but only a couple of weeks for the characters until the action starts up again. I *do* think it was Snape behind the long black veil.# So, he *can* get around. Maybe his mother will help him hide. (I am adamant about Madam Ima Prince) I can't see Snape going back to Voldemort. I believe his "long dark night of the soul" began after he killed Dumbledore. I don't think he would be able to live a life of deceit anymore even if he were not being hunted by the entire WW. I agree with Carol that Voldemort is probably through with him. He's no more use as a spy and LV has had his little fun (I am convinced that LV was in on the UV). # Oh, here's my canon support. The only other time we have seen a witch in a long black veil, it turned out to be a wizard in disguise and there is also a precedent for a son passing as his mama. As for Madam Ima Prince, that evidence has been documented previously. I'm not going to repeat all of it. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 22:51:58 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:51:58 -0000 Subject: Conflict, imposition, and morality (Christian content) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140489 When I started writing this answer, I never EVER imagined it would turn out so long, so religious, and so much in defense of Snape... vmonte wrote: "Del, I'm very confused by your post." Del replies: OK, *that*, I can understand without any problem :-) vmonte wrote: "I also believe in God, like you, and because I adopt his teachings/code I can most certainly see that Snape's moral ethic/code is wrong." Del replies: I don't see it as wrong, I see it as "not the best there's". And I see multiple reasons, many of them valid, why Snape hasn't chosen a "better" moral code yet. Let me give you a parallel: there are thousands of ways to spend your extra money, if you have any. Spending it on drugs or prostitutes is your right (in those countries where those activities aren't illegal). Spending it on legal drugs such as tobacco or alcohol is also your right. Spending it on self-centered activities such as going to the movies or buying a new suit is also your right. You have the right to spend all your extra money in things that won't benefit your neighbour in any form. Just because some people think, and Jesus taught, that a consequent part of our money (and time, and whatever) should go to charitable service doesn't mean anyone *has* to spend their money that way, especially if they don't believe in Christ. I have no right to judge someone who spends all their money on partying and never gives a Knut to the beggar in the street, even if I personally make it a point to give to the beggar regularly. Living a charitable life at the service of my neighbour might be my idea of the best possible life, and that idea might be supported by the One Authority in the Universe, God Himself, but that doesn't mean that I have a right to tell other people that the way they spend their life is "wrong". It's just not the best way, according to God, but that's it. vmonte wrote: "It does not matter whether he has a right to adopt a different code, what matters is if he is adopting the moral code that would place him on the right side. " Del replies: On the right side of what?? According to God, we are ALL on the wrong side, remember? We are ALL sinners, and we ALL need His grace. The fact that Snape might need it a little bit more than we do is irrelevant. You see, I have a HUGE problem with defining what is right and what is wrong in the Potterverse. In the Potterverse, it seems like what DD thinks defines what is right and what is wrong. Being on the side of DD is right, having the same morality as DD is right, but doing or thinking differently than DD is wrong. My problem is that I think that DD's actions and morality are far from perfect to begin with. So there's no way I'm going to use DD as the line in the sand to define who is right and who is wrong. I studied Physics at University, see, and so I necessarily did a bit of Maths. And one thing I learned is that, if your premise is faulty, you can elaborate as much as you want on it, you are *never* going to get a satisfying, bullet-proof result. The mathematical equivalent of building a house on the sand, if you want. And I personally see using DD as a foundation as doing exactly that: building on a faulty foundation. No house built on that foundation is going to be safe. So I have to fall back on my usual foundation: God. And what did Christ teach? He taught that because He loved us first, we should love one another. Because He forgave us first, we should forgive one another. Because He served us first, we should serve one another. Now, happily, there is a vast number of people out there who have come to the conclusion that being loving and charitable is the best thing to do, even without having known of Christ's love first. But there are also many people out there who must *first* taste of Christ's love and forgiveness *before* they can let go of their old pains and sins, and start a new life. Christ knew that, and He accepted it, He never condemned those who couldn't know, only those who should have known. And I believe that Snape is one of those people who need to know Love and Forgiveness before they change, because of his young years. (More on that below) You could argue that DD forgave Snape, and gave him a second chance. Yes, but DD is not Christ. DD doesn't have the Holy Ghost to make Snape feel his love. And DD is no God, he doesn't get involved in people's lives directly. That's even one of his biggest flaws, IMO. Take the Occlumency fiasco, for example. We know he didn't talk to Harry, he didn't even send him a letter. But it also seems like he didn't talk to Snape either. He gave Snape a task that the man was poorly equipped to carry out, and then he left him alone, *even when a HUGE obstacle - Harry invading his Pensieve - cropped up*. That's definitely not God's way. DD is no God, he doesn't have the power, the ability nor the desire to get involved into each of his favourite charges' life. And so he cannot be regarded as an authority in morality, IMO. vmonte wrote: "You do agree that it takes a certain sort of person to become a DE, right? It takes someone who is filled with hatred, enjoys inflicting pain on those that are weak or helpless, someone who can easily deny/suppress their emotions, a good liar, someone who is cruel, can murder others, etc. " Del replies: No, I don't necessarily agree with that. I just have to look around me to see that *many* young adults get involved in extremist groups, not for their ideology at first, but for the feeling of *acceptance* (that's even one of the major tools of recruiting by the terrorist groups). Being made to feel like you belong, like you're important for the group, like someone cares for you, like you are accepted the way you are, those are *huge* snares for young people, especially the more solitary ones, like Snape, and also like Percy. We know that Snape was hanging out with a gang of older Slytherins when he was at school. We know that when he was attacked by James and Sirius in the Worst Memory, no friend came to his rescue. So I think it's quite canon that Snape was quite lonely at Hogwarts after the Gang left, he had no friend of his age, no friend with whom associate once he left the school. But the Gang was still there, eager to take him back, I would bet, and eager to introduce him to LV, who was extremely good at charming and collecting the people he wanted, as we are told in HBP. Not to mention that all those friends were telling Snape that it is OK to be angry, that it is OK to be bitter at the way things are going in the WW, that it is OK to lash out, and so on. And most of all, LV probably taught Snape the very same thing he taught Quirrell: that there's *no good and evil*, only power and those too weak to use it. Can you imagine the degree of acceptance Snape must have felt? After having been persecuted for 7 years simply for liking the Dark Arts, he had found a home where people were telling him that he was absolutely normal! For a 19-year-old or about, that was like heaven. We saw Percy do exactly the same thing. After being persecuted by his brothers for being ambitious and for following the rules, he found a home where people were praising him for being like that. It's no wonder to me why he chose the Ministry over his family. Now I'm not saying that it is a sure thing that Snape didn't fully know what he was getting into. It is perfectly possible that he did know, and that he deliberately chose to enter a terrorist organisation with the intent of hurting people. But I don't think we have any canon saying that this is definitely the way it happened. On the other hand, we know that Sirius believed that his brother had entered the DEs without knowing exactly what they were about, or at least without the intent of doing the same kind of things they were doing, and that he tried to back out when he was asked to get his hands dirtier than he felt comfortable with. Sirius might have been wrong about Regulus in particular, but it seems logical to me that this happened to some other people. vmonte wrote: "Of course it's Snape's right to live immorally, but it should not be dismissed as just a personality quirk. " Del replies: I definitely wouldn't classify it as a personality quirk. It's much more than that. It has to do with how someone sees life and their role in it. We know that Snape was not a well-integrated kid, quite the opposite. He was a loner, and he apparently wasn't trying to change that So obviously he had quite an extreme and negative view of companionship and social relationships. He apparently didn't get emotionally attached very easily, he held grudges, he had strong negative emotions (remember, those are not necessarily choices in teenagers, not 100% anyway). So I am not very surprised that his moral code as an adult would not include being nice with other people, simply because it was never there and because I don't think he ever lived an experience that would have changed his heart. Sure Snape can see that other people live differently and seem happier than he is. So he could indeed decide to give it a try. But that would require him to let go of so many things that he's probably too scared to do that. I've seen that countless times in Christians, whether newly-converted or not (I went through it too, even though I was raised Christian): they don't want to let go of their past hurts, of their grudges, of their bad feelings, because they are afraid to *lose themselves*. They feel that those things are part of themselves, that they partly define who they are, and that if they let go, their very personality will desintegrate somehow. They also have a problem with equating forgiveness with being cheated on. They feel that if they forgive someone before that other person has shown remorse, then they will somehow "lose" and that other person will "win". I think there's something *very much* like that going on with Snape, in his hatred towards James. In RL, the best way to help those people let go of their hurt and grudge is to make them see and feel how much Christ loves them. Once they realise how much Christ has done for them, how He gave ("lost") everything, even His life, so they could "win", how much He loves them even in their sinful state, they find it much easier to forgive another imperfect human being. But Snape hasn't found such a love, so it is very possible that for now he simply cannot change his morality, it's just too much for him. But with the Love Magic going around in the Potterverse, there's hope, real hope... JMO, of course, Del From leora at nycap.rr.com Tue Sep 20 00:22:05 2005 From: leora at nycap.rr.com (musicgal3001) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:22:05 -0000 Subject: Trelawney-seer...but magically disabled? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140490 OK, has anyone ever seen Professor Trelawney do magic? Becuase I have read the books once over again and even in the oddest situations, she uses the "muggle" way of doing things. Example: when Neville breaks the cup, Trelawney runs over with a broom and a dustpan. A simple 'reparo' would have fixed those cups, but she didn't use them. I don't remember even seeing her with a wand. Dunno. Just wanted to know if anyone else has seen her do magic? Maybe seer's can't do magic? Thoughts, anyone? Musicgal. From leora at nycap.rr.com Mon Sep 19 23:53:19 2005 From: leora at nycap.rr.com (musicgal3001) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 23:53:19 -0000 Subject: Hagrid in GH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140491 My take on the 24 hour gap. OK, in SS, the only reason the Dursley's are taking Harry to London is becuase it's the closest hospital from Surrey. So Surrey's gotta be close to London, otherwise, they would have gone to a different city.. Also, Hagrid said that "the little tyke fell asleep as we were over Bristol". If you look on a map, Bristol is in the southern part of England, probably about...6 hours from London. Especially by motorcycle. I mean, motorcycles (especially if it's meant for the road, considering Sirius rode it at some point), don't usually go faster than 100 miles an hour, and that's kinda scary to be riding on. With a child, Hagrid would not dare ride more than 40 miles an hour, if that, and it would take roughly 7 hours to get from GH to Surrey. The other thing is, and you can't forget this, Dumbledore would have had to locate the Dursley's, assure himself that Sirius Black was a complete traitor (which would be accomplished by the lovely show Peter and Sirius put on in the middle of that street on Nov. 1st), and as always, make sure that Harry would never be found by Death Eaters or Voldemort himself (Dumbledore would have to make sure that Voldemort was gone, too.). McGonagall was sent to the Dursleys in the morning. Remember, she can apparate. But who taught her classes? Harry was probably in Hogwarts for the morning, just to sort out a solid plan before taking him somewhere that is not safe. Remember that Hogwarts is the safest place to keep something. Or someone. Another thing is the idea of keeping a cool, calm and collected manner. Hagrid was probably told not to leave until 5 or so, until the students were at dinner and would not see Hagrid flying a motorcycle off the grounds with a child. But watch, Godric's Hallow is actually in America, and the whole 24 hour thing is just the time-difference. Hehehe. Actually, one thing is bugging me. How did Hagrid get to GH before Sirius? He can't apparate or anything... Musicgal. From ichangeling at gmail.com Tue Sep 20 00:51:16 2005 From: ichangeling at gmail.com (Indigo Changeling) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:51:16 -0500 Subject: Filch In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140492 truthbeauty1 > > Now I believe > that Hogwarts contains a few of the horcruxes and Filch is the > caretaker of Hogwarts. I might be wrong, but it appears to me that > Filch was around before Dumbledore was headmaster, maybe even when > Riddle was a student, but definitely when he cam back to ask for the > DADA position. Changeling: Filch couldn't have been caretaker when Ridde was a student, unless Molly Weasley is a lot older than I thought.... In GOF (US ver), chapter 31 p 616 Molly Weasley is talking to Harry and Bill about her own time at Hogwarts. "Your father and I had been for a nighttime stroll," she said. "He got caught by Apollyon Pringle -- he was the caretaker in those days --your father's still got the marks." Changelings. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 01:21:47 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 01:21:47 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Life Debt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140493 I know I'm responding a bit late to Del's excellent post, but you know how sometimes your mental wheels just take their sweet time to get spinning. Besides, I was busy lately with obsessive SHIPping and it tends to clog the mind . So, hopefully some of you still remember what was this about. > Del wrote: > Second question: what happens when one is under a Life Debt? We know > the WW doesn't take magical bonds lightly. You die if you break an > Unbreakable Vow. Harry had to participate in the TWT because his name > came out of the Goblet, no matter that all the rules were broken by > that event. So I would suggest that something like a Life Debt is > about, well, life. I don't think that one's life is at risk as long as > they simply don't repay that Life Debt because Snape has survived 20 > years since he contracted his own. So a Life Debt doesn't seem to > affect one's survival. So how does it work? What could motivate anyone > to repay a Life Debt, other than personal integrity? > > My personal guess is that a Life Debt has disastrous consequences > (read: death) if you take part in the killing of the person you owe a > Life Debt to. > > That would explain why Peter tried to convince LV of using anyone but > Harry for his rebirthing potion: because Peter knew that he would die > if he took part in the murder of Harry. > > And that would definitely explain why Snape was horror-struck when he > realised who LV was going to go after. He realised that he would die > if James died because of the information he (Snape) had passed. > Neri: Yes, that sounds logical to me, but I need one additional clause here to make it work. Suppose I owe you a Life Debt but I hate your guts. If I see *somebody else* attempting to kill you, and I don't interfere although it's in my power to prevent it, this is considered as if I took part in killing you, and therefore according to the proposed terms above I'm dead too. Otherwise I could just stand aside and watch gleefully how somebody else rids me of both you and my Debt. An additional plus about these terms is that they explain why, when asked if Ginny owes Harry a Life Debt, JKR said "not really" and then declined to explain further. Ginny would never try to kill Harry, and would never refrain from preventing somebody else from killing him. Therefore, although she nominally owes Harry a Life Debt, she "doesn't really". The terms of the Life Debt are simply irrelevant to her. And it's obvious why JKR couldn't explain this nuance without giving away too much. > Del: > Sooo... Snape went to the only wizard who might be able to do > something for him, DD. Explained his situation, explained that he > would do *anything* to get out of that mess alive. Well, there was no > getting LV off-track, both Snape and DD knew that. He *would* go after > the Potters. Of course, the Potters would take protective measures, DD > would do his best too, but, well, LV *was* the greatest Dark Wizard > around, so chances were that he would get the Potters sooner or later. > > So here's what I think might have happened. DD proposed a very special > transaction to Snape: a transfer of Life Debt. I'm not sure what the > specifics of the procedure were. Maybe James owed a Life Debt to DD > (not very hard to imagine, for me anyway), and DD remitted James's > Debt in exchange for becoming the object of Snape's Debt. I'm not > sure. But in the end, Snape ended up owing a Life Debt to DD, so that > his own life wasn't at risk anymore should LV kill James because of > the Prophecy. > Neri: This is where things get too complicated for me, and I'll try to simplify them. My proposition for the specifics of the procedure is as follows: Snape owed a Life Debt to James. By going to Dumbledore he tried to prevent James' death and thus saving his own life from the Life Debt terms. But this effort failed, and when James died (just before or just after) Snape was thus in mortal peril. Therefore Dumbledore proposed to him a very special transaction: transferring his Life Debt from James to *Harry*. So Snape survived but now owes the Debt to Harry. However, only the great wizard Dumbledore could perform such a magical transaction, and by doing so he had obviously saved Snape's life. Therefore Snape ended up owing a Life Debt to Dumbledore too. Hmm, one wonders how complex would this magical transaction be, and how long it takes to perform. How about 24 hours? This would explain what was so urgent that it delayed delivering baby Harry to the Dursleys. Owing Life Debts to *both* Harry and Dumbledore is a very powerful bond, and it's easy to see why Dumbledore would trust Snape. Moreover, this way Snape would become the ideal agent from Dumbledore's point of view. As long as Snape is spying in Voldemort's camp he's likely to find out about any plot involving the killing of either Harry or Dumbledore. Once he is aware of such a plot, then according to the Life Debt terms above he is taking part in it, and therefore must prevent it in order to save his own life. Why, this is almost diabolical. I practically feel sorry for poor Severus . > Del: > Now, let's jump to the beginning of HBP. DD goes Horcrux-hunting, and > gets grievously, *mortally*, wounded. And who saves his life, but > Snape? As a result, the Life Debt is repaid, Snape is free. He then > makes it extremely clear that either DD finally gives him the DADA > position, or he leaves. DD has no choice, if he wants to keep Snape > close. He gives him the DADA job, and goes Potion-master-hunting with > Harry. > > From then on, DD can only *hope* that Snape will remain on the right > side. He is exactly in the same position that Merope was, when she > decided to stop feeding Love Potion to her husband: hoping that the > long time spent acting in a specific way has changed the true nature > of the person. DD hopes that after spending so much time working for > the right guys, Snape has changed and has learned to put the Greater > Good before his own ambitions and desires. > > Tough luck... > Neri: No kidding. However, in my version of your theory, when Dumbledore has bet on the sincerity of Snape's remorse he knew he is only betting his *own* life, while Harry's life remains protected as ever, and perhaps even more so, since after killing Dumbledore Snape would become Voldemort's favorite, and is much more likely to be told about any plot. So Dumbledore wasn't really being gullible trusting Snape. Only noble. Well, from here on we have a wealth of possibilities. Snape can have many different motives and inclinations, including fame and glory and perhaps passion towards a certain blond schoolmate . But the main thing is this: when he made the Unbreakable Vow he was already free of his Debt to Dumbledore, but not of his Debt to Harry. Now, this could shed light on several interesting passages, such as: ************************************************** HBP CH. 28, p.603 (US): "No!" roared Snape's voice and the pain stopped as suddenly as it had started; Harry lay curled on the dark grass, clutching his wand and panting; somewhere overhead Snape was shouting, "Have you forgotten our orders? Potter belongs to the Dark Lord - we are to leave him! Go! Go!" ************************************************** Does Snape care that much about the Dark Lord's orders? Even if it's somebody else who's going to take the blame for breaking them? Or does he has another reason to save Harry here? And immediately after that: ************************************************** HBP CH. 28, p.604 (US): "Kill me then," panted Harry, who felt no fear at all, but only rage and contempt. "Kill me like you killed him, you coward -" "DON'T -" screamed Snape, and his face was suddenly demented, inhuman, as though he was in as much pain as the yelping, howling dog stuck in the burning house behind them - "CALL ME COWARD!" And he slashed at the air: Harry felt a white-hot, whiplike something hit him across the face and was slammed backward into the ground. ************************************************** I suspect Pippin is right: Snape was thinking that by "him" Harry meant *James*, not Dumbledore. But what's so horrible to Snape about the idea of killing James or Harry? Does remorse, even most sincere remorse, have the power to make a man scream dementedly 15 years after the case? And what's the "coward" thing has to do with the remorse? OTOH, wouldn't Snape be angry, perhaps even "demented", about being forced to go into so much personal danger, during many years but especially the last two, precisely in order to prevent James and later Harry from getting killed? Maybe this is what's so infuriating about Harry shouting "kill me like you killed him [James]". Or, was Snape perhaps in *real* pain here? And why? Maybe because he was going to hit Harry with a non-lethal curse? Perhaps Life Debt is a more general thing then we assumed above: not only you die if you kill the person you are in Debt to, but you also suffer if you hurt him. Now, won't that make Snape demented? Neri From rh64643 at appstate.edu Mon Sep 19 19:22:25 2005 From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:22:25 -0000 Subject: Snape's purpose Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140494 Amaible Dorsai wrote: Since HBP, I've been wondering if Snape fits into this somehow. An awful lot of people have suggested that it was Lily's death that Snape regrets. Anybody have any ideas? Any explanation has to account for the fact that Snape must have been feeding Dumbledore useful information before Lily and James were murdered. I was just reading this and I thought of something really crazy. We know that at this point LV wasnt quite immortal, but not still mortal really either. Now we know that despite Snapes evilness, he really is an incredibly talented wizard, especially at potions. What if Snape was making for LV some kind of potion that he needed or that made him stronger, kind of like he did for Lupin. This could have been some kind of very advanced, difficult potion that most wizards or witches couldnt accomplish. And either becasue he didnt want to or possibly even couldnt he had Snape do it. Now what if the only favor horrible little Snape ever asks is that LV not kill Lily, maybe even suggesting that her ability with potions could make her useful. This would give LV sufficient reason to not kill Lily. But he does and Snape is pissed and he either really goes to the side of good, or decides that he is going to remain loyal to only himself after this. Just a wild theory, but it could explain a lot. truthbeauty1. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 02:38:01 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 02:38:01 -0000 Subject: Harry, Snape and James (was:Re: Sadistic!Snape?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140495 > Betsy Hp: So Snape catches Harry acting in an incredibly stupid fashion, > following a path taken by his father before him. Harry is saying > nothing. Actually, Harry is thinking (correctly I think) > that, "Snape was trying to provoke him into telling the truth." > (ibid p. 284) But nothing is working, so Snape brings up James in > the most insulting manner possible. Why? > > Now that we know a bit about legilmency and occulmency the answer > seems somewhat obvious, IMO. Snape is trying to jolt Harry into > thinking about his father, possibly in connection with Lupin. Just > as he prompted Harry to think about his potions textbook in HBP, > Snape is trying to prompt Harry into thinking about instructions > given to him by Lupin. Of course, Lupin had nothing to do with > Harry sneaking into Hogsmeade so Snape doesn't find what he's > looking for. (Though he does zero in on the Map quite quickly, so > his detective work isn't *completely* in vain.) > > It wasn't nice for Snape to talk about James in such a manner to > Harry. And it certainly wasn't a good way to turn Harry's > affections away from James. But it was a good way for a legilmentor > to draw specific thoughts to the surface. And, if Snape's > suspicions had been true, it was a good way to protect Harry from an > evil influence. Alla: OK, I am incredibly confused now. Could we get something out of the way first? :-) You are not saying anymore that by bringing James Snape was trying to stop Harry from emulating his father, correct? If you are still saying it, we could at very least agree that this was not working over and over and over again, right? So, if we ARE got it out of the way, could you clarify your argument for me, please? You are saying that after trip in Hogsmead: 1. Snape wants Harry to think about James by insulting him ( OK, I understand it so far, but don't see how that would keep Harry safe). 2. Snape is hoping by legilimising Harry to find a prove of Lupin's guilt (?) while Harry is thinking about James. Is that what you are saying? Why would Harry think of Lupin's guilt while he is feeling insulted for his dad? I want to say that you are giving Snape way too much credit here, but I am not even clear what this credit is for. And I am not kidding. Is the gist of your argument that by insulting James Snape was hoping to catch Lupin and thus protect Harry? If I am right, wouldn't it be much MORE logical for Snape to insult Lupin in front of Harry and hoping that Harry would think about the instructions which Lupin supposedly gave to him? I don't get it at all. > Betsy Hp: > You're right, of course. It was very bad form for Snape to speak of > James at all, especially in such a manner. However, I think the > *motive* for Snape's behavior was good. I think Snape was genuinely > trying to keep Harry safe. And keeping his son safe actually > *honors* James, and shows a genuine remorse, I think. > Alla: OK, let's forget PoA for a minute. What about HBP? What "good' reason Snape has for insulting James here in front of Harry? I think it was Nora who said that it seems that Snape spent more time in HBP obsessing about James ( I am talking in relative terms of Snape screentime of course) than Harry was. So far I remain convinced that the main reason Snape keeps bringing up James is to cause Harry pain and that again makes me doubt Snape remorse, but we shall see of course. I especially wonder what purpose could that sentence have except to get back at Harry, or to get back at James through his son. "And you'd turn my inventions on me, like your filthy father, would you? I don't think so... no!" - p.604, HBP I am guessing you would find some logical reason for this sentence, I cannot find any, except intent to cause more pain to the boy whose mentor he killed in front of his eyes ( for whatever reason, if I may add). If Snape did not want to hurt Harry more, I would think he would dissappear without saying anything. After all, it does not seem that he had much problem deflecting Harry's curses. Maybe he wanted to continue the fun? Not killing Harry of course, but hurting him emotionally and physically. He was running away of course, but I am thinking that he could do it faster? JMO, of course Alla. From trouble_h2o at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 22:16:43 2005 From: trouble_h2o at yahoo.com (trouble_h2o) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:16:43 -0000 Subject: St. Severus of Antioch and Professor Severus Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140496 This is kind of a long introduction to a thought. Sorry I was doing some resource on Orthodox saints and came across a very interesting Saint Severus. As a young man he was highly educated and even became a lawyer. It seems that during the Council of Chalcedon he was made Patriarch of Antioch. During this Council he was accussed of being on the sides of two different opposing heresies concerning the humanity and the divinity of Christ. Yet those who knew him and had read his Christologies knew that in fact he was truely professing the Orthodox faith. It came to pass that the emperior had an arguement about the faith and wanted St. Severus to publicly agree to the heresy that he backed. The emperor's wife Theodora begged and pleaed with Severus to leave he refused at first then after several of the bishops alos begged him to leave St. Severus agreed. When he left he was protected by the "hand of God" and escaped the from the soldiers unseen even though they were close at hand. St. Severus escaped to Alexadria and hid by traveling in disguise from on monastery to another. While in hiding an angel revealed his true idenity to a monestary at Divine Liturgy. During this time many miricles are atributed to him and he instructed his bishops and parishes in the orthodox faith through many letters. The orthodox considier him a Doctor of Faith. In fact he has 3 different day of veneration: His arrvial in Alexaderia, Oct 11, Entombing of his body 12/10 and his departure Feb 8. What stuck me was that the similiarities: 1. Both very intelligent and book people 2. Both in the middle of two opposing sides and very few people realy "knowing" their allegence. 3. Both submitting to some one elses battle plan against evil. St. Severus to Queen Theodora, Professor Severus to Dumbledoor. 4. Both ended up in exile. It will be interesting if the similairities continue in book 7. Evenually St. Severus was cleared of heresy. Will Professsor Severus be cleared. Will Professor Severus teach Harry through letters as St. Severus taught and battled heresy while in exile? Will Professor Severus do great miracles while in exile. While Professor Snapes true idenity be revealed while in hiding? Trouble_h2o From juli17 at aol.com Tue Sep 20 02:53:41 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:53:41 EDT Subject: Missing pieces Message-ID: <1e4.44083fdb.3060d3b5@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140497 Katerina wrote: Why would Snape name himself Half-Blood, something that the people he associated with would regard it with even more disgust? It simply does not fit with the puzzle. Hermione said that he is proud to be half-a-prince but it does not sound logical to me. I am not sure if Snape would chose a nickname that would make him even more unpopular that he was, just because he is proud of his mother's blood. Julie: I don't think anyone knew Snape's nickname for himself, did they? Snape only wrote it in the Potions book as far as we know, and maybe it was his secret nickname for himself, reminding him that while he was half-blood he was also a "Prince." So there wouldn't be any effect on his popularity, or lack thereof...(imagining for a moment how much fun James and Sirius would have had tormenting Snape over that nickname)... Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From AllieS426 at aol.com Tue Sep 20 03:22:54 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 03:22:54 -0000 Subject: Trelawney-seer...but magically disabled? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140498 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "musicgal3001" wrote: > OK, has anyone ever seen Professor Trelawney do magic? Becuase I have > read the books once over again and even in the oddest situations, she > uses the "muggle" way of doing things. Example: when Neville breaks the > cup, Trelawney runs over with a broom and a dustpan. A simple 'reparo' > would have fixed those cups, but she didn't use them. I don't remember > even seeing her with a wand. > > Dunno. Just wanted to know if anyone else has seen her do magic? Maybe > seer's can't do magic? > Thoughts, anyone? > > > Musicgal. I seem to remember her waving her wand to dim the lights. Allie From AllieS426 at aol.com Tue Sep 20 03:26:49 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 03:26:49 -0000 Subject: Epilogue.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140499 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spacedoutspacecadet" wrote: > I was thinking that if JKR kills off Harry at the end of the series > (and I don't believe that she will) I think that it is highly > unlikely that she would put in an epilogue considering that most > people believe that either or both Hermione and Ron will be killed > off and Ginny as well. JKR has said that she believes that the last > word of the series will be 'scar' and if Harry is going to be killed > the only plausible idea that I can come up with for scar to be the > final word is that Ginny lives, Harry manages to get her pregnant > before he dies, she has a baby boy 'who looks just like his father > except there is no scar'... ok anyone else see that as highly > unlikely?? Allie: I don't believe that she will kill Harry. I was imagining something like, "...and he had the relief of knowing that never again would he be pained by his scar." Although no doubt the Horcrux Harry people are imagining, "... and he could never get used to the look of his forehead without its scar." :) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 03:37:58 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 03:37:58 -0000 Subject: Epilogue.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140500 > Allie: > > I don't believe that she will kill Harry. I was imagining something > like, "...and he had the relief of knowing that never again would he > be pained by his scar." Although no doubt the Horcrux Harry people > are imagining, "... and he could never get used to the look of his > forehead without its scar." :) Alla: Nope, I don't believe that she will kill Harry off either. OK, I said many times that I don't want it to happen, but I believe that it is quite possible too. I usually second SSSusan thought that Harry would be prepared to sacrifice himself in the battle (yes, I think the idea of self- sacrifice is integral to how Rowling imagines the Hero), but such sacrifice would be deemed unnecessary for some reason. Yeah, I think it is likely that Harry's scar is a horcrux. Not Harry, but his scar, so metaphorically it would be something like Evil left superficial mark on him,but did not really touch his soul. I believe that this is what " but in essense divided" comment was all about. JMO, of course. I think that because of that Harry would be ready to sacrifice himself and thus would go into final confrontation with tremendous advantage over Voldemort - namely he would not be fearing death anymore. I also think that either someone ( Ron and Hermione) will "unhorcrux" Harry just as Dumbledore did with the ring or it will turn out at the last minute that Harry was not a Horcrux after all. Yeah, so about happy ending - I still think it is possible. I don't think JKR will necessarily " do Frodo" on us. Today I am thinking that it is even possible that all three of them will survive. Oh, and Harry will have twelve kids with Ginny of course ( shhh, Phoenixgod ;)) JMO, Alla. From Lynx412 at AOL.com Tue Sep 20 03:55:37 2005 From: Lynx412 at AOL.com (Lynx412 at AOL.com) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 23:55:37 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Epilogue.. Message-ID: <1d6.452fa236.3060e239@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140501 In a message dated 9/19/2005 6:01:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, BrwNeil at aol.com writes: > JKR once said that Harry wasn't cut out to be a professor, but that > someone > would end up on the staff and not the person we'd expect. Well, I think > we'd > all expect Herman. Since it isn't going to be her, my money is on Neville. Given all the partial parallels with the Marauder's generation, I half suspect that [much like Snape] Draco will be the one to return, having trapped himself by his actions in the current Volley War. It gives a variation on the 'scar' ending. Draco to new student. "You're very much like your father. Pity you don't have his scar." The Other Cheryl, delurking [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Lynx412 at AOL.com Tue Sep 20 03:57:21 2005 From: Lynx412 at AOL.com (Lynx412 at AOL.com) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 23:57:21 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Epilogue.. Message-ID: <147.4db80d28.3060e2a1@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140502 In a message dated 9/19/2005 11:56:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, Lynx412 at AOL.com writes: > in the current Volley War. Um, I meant Voldy... The Other Cheryl, embarrassed... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 04:19:04 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 04:19:04 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Longbottoms In-Reply-To: <83.3020d889.305e60f4@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140503 Del wrote: So I theorise that there's a very simple way to connect all those facts: Snape hated the Longbottoms, considered them even more dangerous than the Potters, and fully expected LV to think that the Prophecy applied to their kid. And just like he has with Harry, he's reported the hate he had for the Longbottoms on their kid. Carol responds: I can't find the original post (this paragraph is copied from a response I'm ignoring), so forgive me for taking it out of context. I don't think the word "facts" is quite justified here, since you're speculating, but I'll let that go. Rather than speculating that Snape hated Neville because he had some grudge against the Longbottoms or that he had any idea of Neville as the alternate Prophecy boy, I think we can just look at the canon for Snape's Potions classes, particularly the first one, to figure out why he treats Neville as he does. Snape takes roll, so he knows Neville is present and he knows who he is. He presents his ode to the "subtle art and exact science of potion-making," then spoils the effect somewhat by making it clear that he has no patience with "dunderheads." He immediately focuses, not on Neville, but on Harry, "our new celebrity," quickly establishing (to his own apparent gratification and that of the Slytherins) that Harry knows nothing about the subject. (He may have other reasons for presenting this particular lesson, but I won't go into that here.) He does not address Neville or single out any other student (other than telling a certain annoying know-it-all to sit down). Instead, he gives them the instructions for making a simple potion and starts "prowling" around the room. He praises Draco's stewed slugs--not that different from Flitwick praising Hermione's hovering feather except that Draco is in his own house--and then he's interrupted by an instance of student incompetence possibly beyond anything he's previously experienced: Neville, without any provocation on the part of Snape beyond the generalized use of "dunderheads" in his opening speech, has managed to melt Seamus's cauldron "into a twisted blob" and cause the students around him to break out in boils. Snape notices Neville for the first time and addresses him as "idiot boy!" He identifies the step that Neville has failed to follow, cleans up the mess with a flick of his wand, and sends Neville to the hospital wing without deducting a single point from Neville (though he takes the opportunity to criticize Harry for not helping him and deduct a point from *him*) (SS Ame. ed. 138-39). Unfortunately for both Neville, this incident has apparently established him in Snape's mind as a "dunderhead," and since he regards himself as "almost a Squib" (CoS am. ed. 185), he continues to be clumsy and forgetful, reinforcing Snape's contempt, which in turn magnifies Neville's fear to the point that he actually believes that Snape will poison Trevor in PoA. Snape does not, however, make any such threat. When Neville's potion turns orange, he asks rhetorically whether anything penetrates Neville's thick skull, identifies Neville's errors, and reveals his own frustration: "What do I have to do to make you understand, Longbottom?" Then, after Hermione offers to help, Snape says, "At the end of this lesson, we will feed a few drops of this potion to your toad and see what happens. Perhaps that will encourage you to do it properly." (PoA Am. ed. 126) Not a word about poison, only Snape's wrongheaded idea of how to "encourage" a timid and unskilful student. He knows quite well that Hermione is helping Neville, and when he walks up to Neville after class, he sees quite clearly that the potion is the proper color, green. Only then does he mention that if Neville has done it wrong, Trevor is "likely to be poisoned." He feeds Trevor the potion, which works, and gives him the antidote. He takes points from Hermione for helping Neville but takes no points from Neville himself (128). Still in a bad mood over this incident, Snape embarrasses Neville in front of Lupin. He has no idea, of course, that Neville's boggart (which logically ought to be Bellatrix Lestrange or an anonymous DE) is Snape himself. The boggart incident, in which Neville overcomes his fear of boggart!Snape by making him ridiculous in front of his classmates, spreads through the whole school, embarrassing and infuriating Snape, who bullies Neville even more. His animosity, which until now has been the result of Neville's incompetence, may well turn personal at this point, but there's no evidence whatever that it relates to Neville's parents. Snape has not attended a teacher's college, much less been taught modern Muggle educational theory. He has never taken a psychology course. He has, as Del pointed out in another thread, found his only friends among the older students in his Slytherin gang, the same ones who no doubt enticed him to become a Death Eater. He knows Potions inside out and he expects students to learn the lessons he presents. He has no clue as to child psychology and consequently no idea that kindness and understanding might help students learn. He simply despises incompetence and thinks he can intimidate students into paying attention and following directions. But he never gets personal with Neville, never mentions his parents or his past. It's only Harry, the Prophecy Boy and the son of arrogant, bullying James who receives that kind of treatment. Carol, thinking that if Neville were in Slytherin, he'd simply be ignored like Crabbe and Goyle From fuzzlebub85 at aol.com Tue Sep 20 04:24:12 2005 From: fuzzlebub85 at aol.com (fuzzlebub85 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:24:12 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid in GH (the missing 24 hours) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140504 SSSusan: Ahem. At the risk of annoying the longer-term members of this board, may I remind you that there *is* at least one theory out there about the missing 24 hours which has parties more actively *doing* things during the 24 hours, rather than just lying low (though I'll grant lying low is definitely a possibility). And the theory hasn't been debunked by HBP. Well... at least, as long as one comes out of HBP still believing in DDM!Snape, it hasn't been debunked.... Kaylee here: I'm all for DDM!Snape. LOL. So of course I still sail aboard the good ship DRIBBLE SHADOWS, Captain. *salutes* Anyway, it's called DRIBBLE SHADOWS, and the gist of it is that the 24 hours was filled with a bit of a side trip by Hagrid w/ Baby Harry, to wherever Snape was at the time, and that he (Snape) provided some additional protection for Harry before Hagrid continued on to Little Whinging. My contention is that DD did not truly believe Voldy to be gone for good, and he wanted to do *anything* he could to provide additinal protection for Harry. Kaylee again: I think he's said as much more than once. Pity the Dursleys disappointed him *amused by images of the drinks banging their heads in HBP* One thing I like about this theory is that it nicely explains why both DD & Hagrid have always *trusted* Snape. Kaylee: It definitely does. I still trust Snape...*ducks flying objects* For anyone interested: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/128717 ... and following (particularly 128778, 128795 & 128892). Siriusly Snapey Susan, waving to crewmates Jen, Potioncat & Kaylee Kaylee, waving to her Captain as well as Jen and Potioncat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Sep 20 04:35:44 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 04:35:44 -0000 Subject: Harry's first time in Dumbledore's office In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140505 > Saraquel: > IMO, this also provides us with a reason why DD might have chosen > the Dursleys, over and above the blood charm protection. DD could > not have known what the outcome of the encounter with Voldemort > meant for Harry, imediately after the event, so he had to choose > something which would suit all eventualities - good or bad. If DD > knew the attitude of the Dursleys towards magic, which I think he > probably did, whether or not you go along with the theroy that > Petunia is actually a witch who decided not to go to Hogwarts, then > he was putting Harry in a place where his magical abilities would > be squashed and definitely not be encouraged early in his life. > He had seen with Riddle what the early discovery of power had > done to him. Jen: Dumbledore must have found it very difficult to chart the right course for Harry, given his past experience with Riddle. Back then Dumbledore seemed to think, or maybe just hoped, that Tom discovering his magical heritage and attending Hogwarts would be enough to turn him around. Dumbledore's regret was palpable during their last civil discussion when he told Voldemort: "the time is long gone when I could frighten you with a burning wardrobe and force you to make repayment for your crimes. But I wish I could, Tom...I wish I could." (chap. 20, p. 446, Scholastic) I felt like Dumbledore was also voicing his personal regret for *allowing* that time to pass and not intervening more during Riddle's slide to evil. You couple that with Dumbledore discovering the prophecy boy was marked with an evil curse, and the situation is downright sticky to sort out. How could he know what "marked him as his equal" would mean? It could very easily mean Harry was slated to be the next Dark Lord, meant to overthrow Voldemort--there was nothing in the prophecy about the the person born in the 7th month being good! I tend to think placing him with the Dursleys was solely because of the blood protection, though. If Dumbledore's main concern was not repeating the past, he'd make certain Harry was placed with a wizarding family who could help shape his magical ability in a positive direction. Jen From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Sep 20 05:44:20 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 05:44:20 -0000 Subject: St. Severus of Antioch and Professor Severus Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140506 Valky : Hey I think this is great, Trouble! Trouble_h2o: > > Yet those who > knew him and had read his Christologies knew that in fact he was > truely professing the Orthodox faith. Valky: That really looks like Dumbledores claim to truting Snape, doesn't it :D Trouble_h2o: > It came to pass that the > emperior had an arguement about the faith and wanted St. Severus to > publicly agree to the heresy that he backed.The emperor's wife > Theodora begged and pleaed with Severus to leave he refused at first > then after several of the bishops alos begged him to leave St. > Severus agreed. Valky: hmm shades of the Unbreakable Vow here I think. Trouble_h2o: > When he left he escaped the from the soldiers unseen even though they were close at hand. Valky: Woot! So much like the Flight of the Prince O_o are you sure this is the real story of St Severus. Trouble_h2o: > St. Severus escaped to Alexadria and hid by traveling in > disguise from on monastery to another. Valky: Well it certainly seems very much like Severus Snape has some roots in the real life story of the Saint, hmm fascinating :D If this is so, then we should be looking for a disguised SS on the odd occasion in Book seven then. It makes sense to me that he'd go in disguise after helping DD off the planet (for whatever reasons). Trouble_h2o: > While in hiding an angel > revealed his true idenity to a monestary at Divine Liturgy. During > this time many miricles are atributed to him and he instructed his > bishops and parishes in the orthodox faith through many letters. Valky: Big WOOT! I Love it! I was working on a theory of Snape sending his Patronus to the Trio with anonymous messages. This story certainly goes there doesn't it! Trouble_h2o: > The orthodox considier him a Doctor of Faith. In fact he has 3 > different day of veneration: His arrvial in Alexaderia, Oct 11, > Entombing of his body 12/10 and his departure Feb 8. Valky: Okay, maybe I am getting carried away wuth the metaphor. But isn't that around about one year After DD's death? Gotta love how that coincides with the Herculean Labour that I pegged for Snape.. LOL I am loving this stuff Thanks Trouble, for taking the trouble! > Trouble_h2o: > What stuck me was that the similiarities: > 1. Both very intelligent and book people > 2. Both in the middle of two opposing sides and very few people > realy "knowing" their allegence. > 3. Both submitting to some one elses battle plan against evil. > St. Severus to Queen Theodora, Professor Severus to Dumbledore > 4. Both ended up in exile. Valky: I agree with all of those points, the similarity is uncanny! Oh and the two heresys that St Severus were accused of were both concerning the dual nature of Christ, for those who would rather not look it up like I did. :D On the one side St Sevvie was accused of claiming that Christ had a dual nature of humanity and divinity that didn't comply with the orthodox view (he apparently has since been proven to have been actually attacking that particular heresy) and the other one was the heresy of being opposed to the orthodox veiw of the dual nature of the Christ (this one is apparently more appropriate to him, but essentially not true either, according to the source I read who says he only failed to expound the orthodox view within the framework of his teaching). well in any case the reason I have bothered to expound on that issue is because of the way it relates to the way Harry and Voldemort are gradually starting to seem more like a duality than two different people. then again maybe I shouldn't go there. I beg the pardon of Orthodox Christians I may have offended by stepping into that bound. > Trouble_h2o: > Will Professor Snapes true idenity be revealed while in hiding? Valky: I think his true alignment will. His identity, I think, might be partially hidden right up until after his death. Or do I have that the wrong way around. :P Oh well great post Trouble! Really good post, thanks! Valky From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Tue Sep 20 06:13:19 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:13:19 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts functioning during missing 24 hours Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140507 Geoff wrote: >So the attack was on the Monday night. Obviously the news had >spread overnight because Professor McGonagall was in Privet Drive >by 08:30. Dumbledore didn't arrive until nearly midnight. I am >surprised that the news reached Hogwarts so quickly. I must admit, >I'd never considered the school having a day off but McG must have >been out of the building going like the clappers to reach Little >Whinging by that time in the morning. Elyse: I dont know if we can be sure that Mcgonagall was at Hogwarts. I presume Hogwarts was closed at the time of Harry's attack. I mean, Harry's birthday is always during the summer holidays, at which time Hogwarts is closed for the vacation. So if Harry was attacked on his first birthday, Hogwarts must have been closed, and the teachers were on vacation. Dumbledore might have been, as Harry speculates in GoF, out on a beach somewhere like Southend-on-Sea sunning himself with his toes in the sand. But I dont think so, seeing as they were in the middle of WW war. I suppose Snape must have been in Spinners End, and Mcgonagall at her own house, which may be near Surrey. Hagrid was probably the only one at Hogwarts seeing as it is his permanant home. (And if he left, who would have fed Fang?) :) Elyse From fuzzlebub85 at aol.com Tue Sep 20 06:29:35 2005 From: fuzzlebub85 at aol.com (fuzzlebub85 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 02:29:35 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hogwarts functioning during missing 24 hours Message-ID: <7b.4dc1886f.3061064f@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140508 Elyse: I dont know if we can be sure that Mcgonagall was at Hogwarts. I presume Hogwarts was closed at the time of Harry's attack. I mean, Harry's birthday is always during the summer holidays, at which time Hogwarts is closed for the vacation. So if Harry was attacked on his first birthday, Hogwarts must have been closed, and the teachers were on vacation. (snips the rest) Kaylee: Sorry to disagree, Elyse. Harry was attacked on Halloween. I remember this clearly, but feel rather foolish for not having PS/SS on hand. *glances around* Anyone have the relevant canon? Kaylee Tonks-Lupin, happy that RL/NT has been proven by HBP (yay!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Sep 20 08:02:15 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:02:15 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts functioning during missing 24 hours In-Reply-To: <7b.4dc1886f.3061064f@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140509 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, fuzzlebub85 at a... wrote: > Elyse: > I dont know if we can be sure that Mcgonagall was at Hogwarts. > I presume Hogwarts was closed at the time of Harry's attack. > I mean, Harry's birthday is always during the summer holidays, > at which time Hogwarts is closed for the vacation. > So if Harry was attacked on his first birthday, Hogwarts must have > been closed, and the teachers were on vacation. > (snips the rest) > > Kaylee: Sorry to disagree, Elyse. Harry was attacked on Halloween. I > remember this clearly, but feel rather foolish for not having PS/SS > on hand. *glances around* Anyone have the relevant canon? Valky: I think it's in another book not PS/SS, maybe POA. In any case I agree, I do recall that canon places Harrys age at 15 months, which would be approximately the end of October. OTOH I think Hogwarts *was* closed/ish. The whole WW was celebrating the downfall of Voldemort, I don't think Hogwarts would have excepted itself from a WW party. Perhaps children were allowed to use the floo to go home and whoop it up with their parents. At least, I don't think there was formal classes on that particular day in WW history. :D From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 09:27:51 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 09:27:51 -0000 Subject: Why are wizards so incompetent? /Evil Overlords/ Some LOTR In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140510 dumbledore11214: .> Oh, and Saruman, talk about great villain, IMO. > > Voldie, on the other hand, I said it before, but let me say it again does not even come close. > The obvious example would be of course Graveyard. to my mind there is no justification of him not killing Harry right away. Zero, none Amiable Dorsai: Of course there is, all the justification in the world; in fact, you've already stated his justification. dumbledore11214: > This is especially laughable in retrospect, IMO. He knows the > prophecy and instead of doing the killing right away, he starts > talking to his DE about how truly scary he is? HAHA! Amiable Dorsai: Bingo! He's not Sauruman; he doesn't have an Orc army; he hasn't lived since the beginning of the world. He's just Tom Riddle, a dangerous wizard, yes, but he's not immortal, not yet, and all he's got is a is a few tens of followers who will follow him only so long as they believe in him or remain terrified by him. Well, he's got them and a sense of theater, a sense of theater that turned little Tommy Riddle in Lord Voldemort. He knows how to lead, how to terrify, how to convince others that he's unbeatable. Only he has been beaten, badly--beaten by Harry Potter, and by Albus Dumbledore. He needs a win, a big win, if he is to regain his prestige, get back his followers belief in his omnipotence, remind those who would oppose him why they're afraid to so much as utter his name. Coming back to life is not a bad start, sticking his thumb in Dumbledore's eye by snatching Harry out from under his nose in a public venue is even better. But now comes the capper. Killing Harry and displaying his body to the Death Eaters when they return wouldn't be bad, but toying with Harry for their amusement, then killing Harry effortlessly and at his leisure... That will end the mystique of The Boy Who Lived forever. Brilliant theater. Except that Harry missed his cue and blew his lines. Now, if my thesis is valid, Harry's escape from the graveyard should have consequences. Some Death Eater(s) should lose faith in Voldemort as a result of this flop. So far, I'm not sure any have, unless... Before Harry fought Voldemort to a standstill, would Narcissa and Bellatrix have gone behind Voldemort's back as they did at Spinner's End? Narcissa may have, she was a mother desperate to do anything to save her child, but Bella? When we first see Bella, in Dumbledore's Pensieve, she struck me as having a religious fervor for Voldemort. She reminded me of nothing so much as a martyr sacrificing herself for her god, secure in her belief that she will be "saved" by him, eventually. She was a woman with no doubts. Bella at Spinner's End, though, that Bella has doubts. She thinks--and says out loud--that Voldemort has made a mistake in trusting Severus Snape. She is willing to risk operating behind Voldemort's back to keep her sister from making the same mistake. Now she didn't see the fiasco in the graveyard, but she surely heard about it, and she did see Voldy come off second best against Dumbledore in the Department of Mysteries. I wonder if the shine has gone off her devotion? Amiable Dorsai From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 09:35:39 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 09:35:39 -0000 Subject: Voldie's Wand and other details In-Reply-To: <000801c5bd44$fb9503c0$704b6d51@f3b7j4> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140511 > Amiable Dorsai wrote: > McGonagall's presence at Privet Dive is troubling. Dumbledore > expresses surprise at it, and he is not forthcoming with her about his > real reason--the Blood Protection--for leaving Harry with the > Dursleys. manawydan replied: quote "Hagrid's late. I suppose it was he who told you I'd be here, by the way?" "Yes", said Professor McGonagall unquote Amiable Dorsai slams his head against the desk and replies: Damn, I somehow missed that when I skimmed the first chapter of SS to refresh my memory. That blows some of my ideas out of the water. Thank you. Amiable Dorsai From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 10:13:00 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:13:00 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts functioning during missing 24 hours In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140512 > Valky: > I think it's in another book not PS/SS, maybe POA. > In any case I agree, I do recall that canon places Harrys age at 15 > months, which would be approximately the end of October. > > OTOH I think Hogwarts *was* closed/ish. The whole WW was celebrating > the downfall of Voldemort, I don't think Hogwarts would have excepted > itself from a WW party. Perhaps children were allowed to use the floo > to go home and whoop it up with their parents. At least, I don't think > there was formal classes on that particular day in WW history. :D Finwitch: Yes, I recall that too... that the killing happened on Halloween/last of October... And someone - a wizard/witch or narrative - saying Harry was at the age of one when it happened. So we calculated for Harry's age to be year and a half -- but, of course, it IS possible that the wizards would call him him a year-old at 6months and up... Harry WAS a baby, wasn't he? I do recall McGonagall's scoffing at the celebrations... lack of care etc... "Wouldn't be surprised if they came to know this day as the Harry Potter Day in the future"... A tuesday as we watched Vernon. Was there some thought about Halloween being over when he saw the wizards? Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 10:47:41 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:47:41 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Life Debt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140513 > Neri: > An additional plus about these terms is that they explain why, when > asked if Ginny owes Harry a Life Debt, JKR said "not really" and then > declined to explain further. Ginny would never try to kill Harry, and > would never refrain from preventing somebody else from killing him. > Therefore, although she nominally owes Harry a Life Debt, she "doesn't > really". The terms of the Life Debt are simply irrelevant to her. And > it's obvious why JKR couldn't explain this nuance without giving away > too much. -- My proposition for the specifics of the procedure is as > follows: Snape owed a Life Debt to James. By going to Dumbledore he > tried to prevent James' death and thus saving his own life from the > Life Debt terms. But this effort failed, and when James died (just > before or just after) Snape was thus in mortal peril. Therefore > Dumbledore proposed to him a very special transaction: transferring > his Life Debt from James to *Harry*. So Snape survived but now owes > the Debt to Harry. However, only the great wizard Dumbledore could > perform such a magical transaction, and by doing so he had obviously > saved Snape's life. Therefore Snape ended up owing a Life Debt to > Dumbledore too. Finwitch: Interesting theory - a magical life-debt working so that the person owing the debt cannot use magic to harm the person he owes the debt to, AND to die if he doesn't manage to prevent a plot against that person when he wills to -- and Snapes' Life-debt transferred to Harry- yes, it does make interesting matters about Dumbledore's comment about Snape saving Harry. Perhaps the transfer *also*, in part at least, explains why Harry looks like James, why Snape sees James in Harry so thoroughly... However, that limitation on harming the person - I think that's only about magical harm or Pettigrew couldn't have cut Harry's arm, but-- However, I think that a minor (under 17) cannot be magically indebted - bound to magical contract, yes, but not to a debt of that sort... Perticularly if this cannot kill the one I owe a life-debt to helds true, and if not, what IS it worth? As to why: Dumbledore saved Harry's life (just in time) in the end of PS. Why would he have been worried about Harry killing him in OOP if there was a magically bonding debt preventing it? Which is also why Ginny isn't *really* under life-debt. As for the theory of life-debt bonding "enemies" - well, the thing is that if a friend (or even a stranger) would owe a life-debt, people would hardly notice... It's interesting, though - Arthur, I believe *does* owe a life-debt to Harry as well as Ron (Harry showing a bezoar into his mouth on his 17th birthday)... Anyway, Hermione being so timid and insecure (as I interpret her stick-to-books-and-rules behaviour, both in PS and HBP) is IMO result of her having read of all sorts of magical bounds a witch (or wizard) of age can end up into. Oh and BTW - Dumbledore, too, *did* warn against taking an unbreakable vow in CoS - "It seems that sometimes even the best of us must break our word" - but DID he break his word? You know, his wording when he gave that 'promise to expel them': "If you do anything like this again, I shall have no choice but to expel you" - I don't know if saving Ginny's life, killing a basilisk and proving Hagrid's innosence counts as anything like flying a car to Hogwarts... AND it was worded more in a manner of a prediction than a promise to me... Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 11:37:48 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:37:48 -0000 Subject: Conflict, imposition, and morality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140514 Sandy: > There is no obligation for anyone to even respect the majority's > morality, IMO. There are only various consequences if they don't. --: > "The One Right Moral Code" changes from country to country and > believer to believer. There is no absolute code, even in any scripture > on the planet, IMO (because all the ones I know anything about have > self-contradictions within). Finwitch: I agree with you - I am an agnostic - which means I believe that a Deity does not fit into human understanding and therefore we cannot know anything about that Deity-- including whatever that Deity's moral code is. and of morals, yes. There is no universal code. It all depends on situation. And while society has the right to pass on consecuences (punishments) on things that are against the rules of the society (it must, in order to exist as one) - moral code goes beyond that. That's what martyrs do: defy authority and take the society's penalty. Whether that martyr be Socrates or Mahatma Gandhi or some sort of Leader of a Religious order. I'd even say that Harry with his cut-up hand was a martyr... And I do still hold that Dumbledore's trust in Snape was a moral choice. I'd remind you of the Weasley clock in HBP: Every hand was in "Mortal Peril" just because Voldemort was back... I think Dumbledore's trust was way better choice than Scrimgeour putting Stan Stunpike in Azkaban (or Crouch doing same to Sirius. At least poor Stan doesn't have to suffer Dementors). And just one thing: Making a moral choice, choosing Right over Easy - I wish people would stop referring to that sort of thing as foolishness. Look at Harry's choices: Harry and Cedric deciding to share the cup? Harry deciding to save all the hostages in the lake? Or what do you think of Harry telling Cedric about the Dragons? People don't usually tip off the persons about the competition they're rivals in, you know... Or about Cedric demanding a rematch after Harry fell off his broom under Dementor-influence? ;-) Most of all, Albus Dumbledore. Look at where his goodness took him: He chuckled and hummed most of the time - look at his funeral, how Widely respected and even loved he was - Centaurs and Merpeople showing up for the ceremony... how utterly *peaceful* he was at his death--- A result of leading a good life, I think. We all die, but how many are as happy in life and so much at peace with their death as Albus Dumbledore? Finwitch From hfhrestoresgf at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 19 17:40:52 2005 From: hfhrestoresgf at sbcglobal.net (Anna) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 17:40:52 -0000 Subject: funniest line of the book!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140515 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "njelliot2003" wrote: > As well as the laughs, HBP was enjoyable for me because of the > number of times I 'felt moved' by what was going on, the best for me > being DD's "I am with you Harry." Anyone else like to nominate > scenes/events/plot developments that gave them a warm glow? > Anna says: I never have the book in front of me when I want to reference something, but when Harry is making the euphoria potion for Sluggy's "make something amusing" lesson I got a huge laugh when Slughorn commended Harry on the use of mint (HBP's idea) that "would counter the side effects of singing and nose-tweaking." From sylphstarwind35 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 03:01:07 2005 From: sylphstarwind35 at yahoo.com (sylphstarwind35) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 03:01:07 -0000 Subject: Why did Voldemort seem reluctant to kill Lily? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140516 Hello. I'm new here. I probably won't be heavily involved in this site, but I'll check in from time to time. I wanted to post something about the question on the Lexicon site (see subject). Could Voldemort have been messing with Lily? Trying to get her to give up the life of her son, to show that evil is more powerful than good? Like, in the end she'd rather live without her son than die? Or maybe he thought she had potential and hoped that she would come over to his side. sylphstarwind35 From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 20 13:04:14 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:04:14 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts functioning during missing 24 hours In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140517 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, fuzzlebub85 at a... wrote: > > Elyse: > > I dont know if we can be sure that Mcgonagall was at Hogwarts. > > I presume Hogwarts was closed at the time of Harry's attack. > > I mean, Harry's birthday is always during the summer holidays, > > at which time Hogwarts is closed for the vacation. > > So if Harry was attacked on his first birthday, Hogwarts must have > > been closed, and the teachers were on vacation. > > (snips the rest) > > > > Kaylee: Sorry to disagree, Elyse. Harry was attacked on Halloween. I > > remember this clearly, but feel rather foolish for not having PS/SS > > on hand. *glances around* Anyone have the relevant canon? > > Valky: > I think it's in another book not PS/SS, maybe POA. > In any case I agree, I do recall that canon places Harrys age at 15 > months, which would be approximately the end of October. Geoff: Tsk, tsk, it's clearly there in Philsopher's Stone: '"Now, yer mum an' dad were as good a witch an' wizard as I ever knew. Head Boy an' Girl at Hogwarts in their day! Suppose the myst'ry is why You-Know-Who never tried to get 'em on his side before... probably knew they were too close ter Dumbledore ter want anythin' ter do with the Dark Side. Maybe he thought he could persuade 'em... maybe he just wanted 'em outta the way. All anyone knows is, he turned up in the village where you was all living, on Hallowe'en ten years ago. You was just a year old. He came ter yer house an' - an'-" Hagrid suddenly pulled out a very dirty spotted, handkerchief and blew his nose with a sound like a foghorn.' (PS "The Keeper of the Keys" p.43 UK edition) So this places it on 31st October 1981. From Cairie.Witter at resbank.co.za Tue Sep 20 05:54:10 2005 From: Cairie.Witter at resbank.co.za (Cairie Witter) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:54:10 +0200 Subject: Hagrid in GH Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140518 Ceridwen: > > But, I'm wondering, what about the school? The headmaster and > > deputy headmistress, which also means the Transfiguration teacher, > > are notably missing from the school. Who took over McGonagall's > > class while she was reading the paper on the corner of Privet Drive? Potioncat: > As everyone is celebrating, I'd guess the students at Hogwarts had > been given the day off. So it could have been the Headmaster and one > teacher missing. I'm sure Snape was staying close to Hogwarts at that > moment I for one wouldn't be surprised if the students had the day off. If they didn't, then they might have had a free period that they never thought they would have. It would have given them the chance to discuss Harry and his lucky escape.. Cairie From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 20 13:43:48 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:43:48 -0000 Subject: Hagrid in GH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140519 Geoff: I don't claim to be an expert on US geography but if I am reading a book based on real places, I will try to get a look at a map to orientate myself. Some of my worthy fellow-members of the group seem to have some rather vague ideas about the UK so I shall go into teacher mode to deal with a little bit of UK geography and history. Saraquel wrote in message 140474: I think there could be a very simple explanation as to why everything happened near midnight, rather than earlier. The cover of darkness. We don't know what time the deed happened, but it must have taken time for DD to formulate his plan, which would have taken at least until first light. They knew that even if Voldemort was out of the picture, there were still DEs out there, and secrecy and security were paramount. Hagrid could well have laid low in the Welsh valleys (sparsley populated countryside) during the day and set off after light fell. If it took him 4 or 5 hours, that would get him to Privet Drive late evening. Geoff: He wouldn't try to lie low in the Welsh valleys. Sparsely populated is hardly the description I would use. The Welsh valleys were the centre of the coal-mining areas and are the centre of heavy industry. He'd have to go further north up to, say, the Brecon Beacons for really remote country and then, if he already had Harry with him, he might well then have flown over towns further north than Bristol ? Gloucester for example. Musicgal wrote in message 140491: "My take on the 24 hour gap. OK, in SS, the only reason the Dursley's are taking Harry to London is becuase it's the closest hospital from Surrey. So Surrey's gotta be close to London, otherwise, they would have gone to a different city.. Also, Hagrid said that "the little tyke fell asleep as we were over Bristol". If you look on a map, Bristol is in the southern part of England, probably about...6 hours from London. Especially by motorcycle. I mean, motorcycles (especially if it's meant for the road, considering Sirius rode it at some point), don't usually go faster than 100 miles an hour, and that's kinda scary to be riding on. With a child, Hagrid would not dare ride more than 40 miles an hour, if that, and it would take roughly 7 hours to get from GH to Surrey." Geoff: It's more than just Surrey being close to London. Parts of London were Surrey... Until the London County Council (LCC) was created in the 1880s, London straddled several counties. The south-western corner of London was in Surrey. After the LCC came into being, the county boundaries were pushed out, although there are still links; the Oval, where the last Ashes test resulted in the England cricketers winning the series, is still the Surrey county ground although its only a mile or so from the centre of London. I lived in south-west London from 1949-94 in three places, either in Wandsworth or Wimbledon, never more than two miles from the Wimbledon tennis ground. I taught for all my career in a school about 5 miles south of my home and was employed, to begin with, by the Surrey County Council. In 1965, Greater London came into being and I began to work for the London Borough of Merton. The Surrey boundary altered again but here there is another connection with Harry Potter. Under the 1965 reorganisation, most of the old County of Middlesex, which was north of the Thames, came into Surrey and it is this part where it can be implied from canon that little Whinging lies. On the question of distances, Bristol lies about 120 miles almost due west of London. If we place Little Whinging on the western edge of the capital and assume that there will be fairly quick access to the M4 motorway, you could get from there to the centre of Bristol in a little over 1? hours; the speed limit on a dual carriageway in the UK is 70 mph. If, as some of us think, Godric's Hollow is perhaps beyond Swansea in West Wales would be a further 2 hours or so. But remember Hagrid is riding a flying motorbike which could travel safely at the same speed or faster. Musicgal also wrote: "Actually, one thing is bugging me. How did Hagrid get to GH before Sirius? He can't apparate or anything..." Geoff: Why not? I know he says that he is not allowed to do magic but does this count? Some people have also suggested that he might have Apparated when Harry left Paddington on the train home... `The train pulled out of the station. Harry wanted to watch Hagrid until he was out of sight; he rose in his seat and pressed his nose against the window but he blinked and Hagrid was gone.' (PS "Diagon Alley" p.66 UK edition) From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Sep 20 13:41:24 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:41:24 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Life Debt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140520 Finwitch: > As for the theory of life-debt bonding "enemies" - well, the thing is > that if a friend (or even a stranger) would owe a life-debt, people > would hardly notice... Ceridwen: IMO, a life-debt, or anything like, would put a strain on a friendship. Once the debt is there, you have to keep it in mind, and are then ambiguous as to whether you're acting like a friend, or as one indebted. A person could well end up resenting the friend one is indebted to, as well. And, wouldn't it be just par for the course, for a friend to save another friend? It's less expected, therefore more striking, when one saves an enemy. It's clear that it isn't done for personal reasons, but for higher ideals. That the animosity or outright hate is set aside to do this deed is probably a part of it. Ceridwen. From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Tue Sep 20 13:43:38 2005 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:43:38 -0000 Subject: Hagrid in GH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140521 "musicgal3001" wrote: > Actually, one thing is bugging me. How did Hagrid get to GH before > Sirius? He can't apparate or anything... > > Musicgal. -aussie / norbertsmummy- With an ID like "norbertsmummy" for a guy, you can guess I put a bit of thought into Hagrid. Hagrid was limited in Magical ability since he never got past 3rd year of school. And apart from being an OOTP and trusted by DD, I don't think most OOTP members viewed him as more than an oddity to put up with. I am pretty sure that none of the Marauders were overly friendly with Hagrid, so I doubt he'd been to Godric's Hollow before. What evidence athat the Marauders and Hagrid weren't close? Mainly because of the Marauders map itself. HBP doesn not show the Room of Requirements on the Map - because the Marauders never got into that room to plot it. 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. Scabbers went inside with Ron, and so knew he was safe there, and knew he was invisible to the map while at Hagrid's. So this adds more quiries about how Hagrid could find GH before Sirius got there. aussie/norbetsmummy From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 10:41:34 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:41:34 -0000 Subject: Conflict, imposition, and morality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140522 Sandy aka msbeadsley wrote: "There is no empirical evidence I know of for any deity's existence or for the tenets of any religion outside the humans who compiled/composed/received them." Del replies: If you're speaking of an empirical evidence "knowable" by everyone at once, you're right. However, if you're speaking of evidence "knowable" by one person, you're not that right anymore. The Holy Ghost, for example, can provide absolute personal evidence, but that evidence is not transferable. Moreover, your comments bring up an interesting question: what is the empirical evidence in the Potterverse that Light is right and that Dark is wrong? What is the empirical evidence that DD is right and that LV is wrong? Apart from people's own convictions and desires, what is there to say that LV's view isn't just as right as DD's? In fact, we do know that quite a few people didn't use to think that Dark and LV were wrong. Sirius told us that his own parents, and several others, thought that LV had it right in his ideology. It seems like the true reason the WW as a group turned against LV is not so much a moral reason, but rather fear: they are scared of LV and what he's done. They turned against his methodology, but not so much against his ideology, as demonstrated by all the bigoted and racist attitudes still exhibited by a lot of wizards and witches. So technically LV is wrong to break the law and kill people, and that's why he's being so strongly opposed. But he's apparently not so wrong, by WW morality, to think as he does. I, Del, wrote earlier: "I would never adopt Snape's code even if I abandoned mine, simply because I know that Snape's code is a painful one." Sandy aka msbeadsley replied: "Are you saying that it pains Snape, or that it would pain you?" Del answers: Both :-) I know I would end up feeling lots of emotional pain if I decided to hold to grudges, for example, and I am convinced that Snape similarly hurts himself by holding to his own grudges. Sandy aka msbeadsley wrote: "But the law has its basis in codes that go back to God as well; so then, why is it necessary that "those who don't know God" respect the law?" Del replies: Because the majority wants them to, and provided punishments for those who would do otherwise. I didn't mean respect as in "support, or uphold", but more as in "fear, or go along with". Sandy aka msbeadsley wrote: "There is no obligation for anyone to even respect the majority's morality, IMO. There are only various consequences if they don't." Del replies: That's what I meant :-) Respect doesn't necessarily come out of moral agreement, it can simply be a self-preservation attitude. As in "respecting" Umbridge and her educational decrees, for example: people complied with them, at least on the surface, not because they agreed with them, but simply to stay out of troubles. Sandy aka msbeadsley wrote: "An obligation only exists if the person in question adopts the majority's morality, even if they only do so in the sense of trying to use them to modify *others'* behavior. Once they buy in, they're stuck. IMO." Del replies: Not sure what you mean here, sorry. Sandy aka msbeadsley wrote: "Snape is furious, AFAWK, when Harry invades his privacy (memories in the Pensieve). Privacy is part of a moral/social code outside of law. Snape insists on other respectful forms as well; IMO, once he demands that others adhere to a code of moral/social conduct, he obligates himself as well. It is one thing to refuse to adhere to a code if the reason is that you do not recognize it as correct or relevant or useful; once you do, if you ignore it at only at your own convenience, then, IMO, you are morally in error. Inherently. Regardless of the code in question." Del replies: You're making a slight mistake, though: respect of the privacy and the person of superiors are not components of only one moral code. They are integral parts of many other moral codes that *do not* include reciprocity to inferiors. In fact, they are even part of LV's "moral code": he, as the Lord, has the right to humiliate his subordinates, torture them, invade their privacy, and so on, but they don't have the right to reciprocate, and they must always show him respect. This is exactly how Snape is acting towards LV: he always calls him "the Dark Lord", for example, not "You-Know-Who". He also tended to do that with DD, shutting up when DD told him to, for example, and always calling him in respectful terms. So the facts that Snape reserves the right to invade his students' privacy and to disrespect them while at the same time demanding that they respect his own privacy and person are not at all incompatible. They just show that Snape doesn't go with the reciprocating-to-inferiors moral code, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Sandy aka msbeadsley wrote: ""The One Right Moral Code" changes from country to country and believer to believer. There is no absolute code, " Del replies: Exactly! What constitutes the One Right Moral Code is particular to each person, and this is why it cannot be used to judge others, and it cannot be morally imposed on anyone else. Which is precisely why I find it unfair to try and force a particular brand of morality on Snape. Sandy aka msbeadsley wrote: "Personally, I recognize no deity; on the other hand, the idea of life under no code or law strikes me as terrifying and appalling. I want to live in a world where people balance their own wants and needs against the wants and needs of others. I consider it a kind of social barter system; I believe people grant each other rights because they want to have some themselves, and, essentially, there is constant and infinite bargaining going on." Del replies: That's the difference with LV: he doesn't care about bargaining, because he has enough *power* to actually impose his desires. And unlike us, he's not at all afraid of living in a lawless land, because he knows he's powerful enough to survive it and even take it over. Those are things he learned very early in life: that he has the power to make others do his will, and his "morality" is directly derived from this knowledge. (I'm saying " "morality" " when referring to LV's code, because I think he's a sociopath, which means that he doesn't actually have a morality.) As for Snape, we know that he always had poor social skills, and that he never knew how or bothered to do the social bargaining thing. What he wants is respect from those "lower" than him or on the same level as him, and he's apparently ready to suck up to those higher than him to obtain that. So LV's offer is much more tempting for him than, say, DD's. And I don't see that there's anything inherently wrong with that either. Sandy aka msbeadsley wrote: "I think the need for religion will eventually go the path of the appendix, if the race survives long enough. I'd like to see Homo Sapiens grow up enough to no longer need celestial mommies and daddies. I want to believe in people, and have people believe in themselves and each other." Del replies: And I believe that Christ will return to the Earth, forever this time, and rule it as King of Kings. To each her own ;-) JMO, of course, Del From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Tue Sep 20 13:52:04 2005 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:52:04 -0000 Subject: Benjy Fenwick ... was he the one DD was hiding? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140523 In OOTP, when Mad-Eyed Moody was showing Harry a photo of the original OOTP, he also said, "... and that there's Lupin, obviously... Benjy Fenwick, he copped it too, we only ever found bits of him..." Is he actually dead or is he the one DD is hiding as infered to in HBP on the tower? From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Sep 20 14:17:08 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:17:08 -0000 Subject: Snape's future (Was: Snape's other books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140524 > > Carol responds: > I've been wondering the same thing. I'm sure the Aurors will search > his office (and Spinner's End, if they can find it) quite thoroughly. Potioncat: Well, I was going to write a very good post about whether Spinner's End is Snape's or LV's. I was going to suggest the Riddles made their money from the mills and this is property that ....never mind. Another read through of "Spinner's End" changed my mind. Let's assume, since most of us do anyway, that Spinner's End is the same house where teenaged Severus killed flies. It could be the Muggle home of his Muggle father, or it could have belonged to his mother, in the midst of Muggles but hidden from them. At any rate, it's now a wizard home in the midst of an abandoned neighborhood. But even more interesting, Snape was said to belong to a gang that included Bella, yet she's surprised that he lives here. Narcissa, on the other hand, knows just where it is. She hurries there with no apparant problem. Has she been here before? Hmm, was there a dish of ACID POPS on the side table? There doesn't appear to be any charms on the house that would make it hard to find. So either Snape and Pettigrew had better pack up quick, or Snape had better begin the incantations! (That would, of course, make him "Prince, charming".) AD in next weeks Prophet: For sale,a charming brick townhouse in an historic neighborhood ripe for gentrification. Home values here can only go up! The centerpiece of the cozy sitting room are lovely built- in bookcases.... As for the aurors and their search. Well, that would make sense, wouldn't it? I wonder if anyone searched Moody's quarters after Barty was discovered? JKR didn't tell us about it. My guess is that we won't see any of the Dumbledore Murder Investigation either. Unless Arthur is either part of it or hears about it and tells us, erm, I mean, tells Harry about it. Carol:> > But I've also been thinking of what Snape is going to do now. > (and I'll bet they will since Draco is an accessory to murder as well > as being guilty of attempted murder and various other crimes), she > could give away Snape's hiding place. Potioncat: Unless of course, Spinner's End is charmed in some way and Draco has to hide there too. > Carol: > What happens next? Is he still bound by the vow to protect Draco, even > though Draco is now a "man," having turned seventeen on June 5? Potioncat: I read the UV as being completed with the death of DD, but if not, I'd think Draco's coming of age would finish it. Since coming of age completes the blood protection with Harry's family. Carol: Will he find a way to > communicate with the Order if he can still conjure a Patronus? Sure, > he's clever and he can probably elude the Aurors by Apparating, but he > has to live somewhere. Potioncat: Well, there are some nice caves not too far from Hogsmeade. He can hang from the ceiling there..erm I mean...hang out there. Of course, the first time he saw words carved in the cave wall "Padfoot was here" he'd go ballistic. Carol: > I think JKR plans to give Snape an important role (one crucial scene, > at least) in Book 7, but how can she keep him safe and alive till then? Potioncat: Bella has been safe, as has Peter. By the way, has anyone suggested that Peter might be DDM!Peter? So I'm sure JKR can keep Snape unharmed by friend or foe until she needs him. Carol: > > Does anyone have any ideas (at least remotely supportable by canon so > we won't be sent to OTChatter by the Elvses) as to what Snape is > likely to do next (assuming that he's not immediately killed or sent > to Azkaban, in which case his fate is a nonissue)? Will he stay at > Spinner's End with Peter (surely a risky proposition), move in with > Voldy, share a cozy hideaway with Bellatrix in that secret room under > the drawing room in the Malfoy manor, fly to Egypt on Buckbeak? (Just > joking on that last one.) Potioncat: As you said, there are all sorts of possibilities. I think we're going to hear of Snape doing horrible things. At the very least, we'll hear of DEs doing horrible things and Harry will have good reason to suspect Snape was part of it. You bring up a good point, Snape could end up in Azkaban. If so, I'm sure we'll get the scene where he's tossed into his cell and the first thing he sees is writing on the wall "Padfoot was here". There's no dementors there now. I wonder how much contact the inmates have? Hiding at Malfoy Manor might work as well. I don't think the MoM has found all the secrets in the that house. (I don't want want to picture him with Bella though.) I really expect we'll either see almost nothing of Snape, or we'll see an absolutely horrible Snape until the end. At the end we'll get some big scene which will prove at last which side he has been on. Potioncat, who will add that the resolution will be clear that he is DDM!Snape or else the ending will prove to some of us that he maintained his cover to the very end. From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Tue Sep 20 13:46:16 2005 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (Jazmyn Concolor) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:46:16 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: funniest line of the book!! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <433012A8.60604@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140525 Anna wrote: >Anna says: >I never have the book in front of me when I want to reference >something, but when Harry is making the euphoria potion for >Sluggy's "make something amusing" lesson I got a huge laugh when >Slughorn commended Harry on the use of mint (HBP's idea) that "would >counter the side effects of singing and nose-tweaking." > > > But, can you picture Snape having taken this potion and suffering said side effects, which caused him to decide to add mint? And what other side effects did he experience when coming up with his potion improvements? If he experimented on himself a lot, he might have done a lot of really odd things while in school that we can only barely imagine. The mind boggles at the mental image. A singing, nose-tweaking Snape on the loose! Jazmyn From fuzzlebub85 at aol.com Tue Sep 20 14:28:39 2005 From: fuzzlebub85 at aol.com (fuzzlebub85 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:28:39 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hogwarts functioning during missing 24 hours Message-ID: <1db.445fddd2.30617697@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140526 > > Kaylee: Sorry to disagree, Elyse. Harry was attacked on Halloween. I > > remember this clearly, but feel rather foolish for not having PS/SS > > on hand. *glances around* Anyone have the relevant canon? > > Valky: > I think it's in another book not PS/SS, maybe POA. > In any case I agree, I do recall that canon places Harrys age at 15 > months, which would be approximately the end of October. Geoff: Tsk, tsk, it's clearly there in Philsopher's Stone: '"Now, yer mum an' dad were as good a witch an' wizard as I ever knew. Head Boy an' Girl at Hogwarts in their day! Suppose the myst'ry is why You-Know-Who never tried to get 'em on his side before... probably knew they were too close ter Dumbledore ter want anythin' ter do with the Dark Side. Maybe he thought he could persuade 'em... maybe he just wanted 'em outta the way. All anyone knows is, he turned up in the village where you was all living, on Hallowe'en ten years ago. You was just a year old. He came ter yer house an' - an'-" Hagrid suddenly pulled out a very dirty spotted, handkerchief and blew his nose with a sound like a foghorn.' (PS "The Keeper of the Keys" p.43 UK edition) So this places it on 31st October 1981. Kaylee now: *runs up to Geoff and randomly hugs him, inviting him aboard Captain Amber's ship, the SWAK DEAD, for some butterbeer (fresh from the dementor-shaped tap)* Thank you!! Thank you, Geoff!! Okay, perhaps I'm a little hyper. I *knew* it was PS/SS!!! *vows to remember the relevant canon from now on* Kaylee Tonks-Lupin, First Mate of the SWAK DEAD as well as Shipmate of the DRIBBLE SHADOWS, doing both jobs ably and well [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sherriola at earthlink.net Tue Sep 20 14:36:55 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:36:55 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry, Snape and James (was:Re: Sadistic!Snape?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <005c01c5bdf0$c1004bf0$ea21f204@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 140527 > Betsy Hp: So Snape catches Harry acting in an incredibly stupid fashion, > following a path taken by his father before him. Harry is saying > nothing. Actually, Harry is thinking (correctly I think) > that, "Snape was trying to provoke him into telling the truth." > (ibid p. 284) But nothing is working, so Snape brings up James in > the most insulting manner possible. Why? > > Now that we know a bit about legilmency and occulmency the answer > seems somewhat obvious, IMO. Snape is trying to jolt Harry into > thinking about his father, possibly in connection with Lupin. Just > as he prompted Harry to think about his potions textbook in HBP, > Snape is trying to prompt Harry into thinking about instructions > given to him by Lupin. Of course, Lupin had nothing to do with > Harry sneaking into Hogsmeade so Snape doesn't find what he's > looking for. (Though he does zero in on the Map quite quickly, so > his detective work isn't *completely* in vain.) > > It wasn't nice for Snape to talk about James in such a manner to > Harry. And it certainly wasn't a good way to turn Harry's > affections away from James. But it was a good way for a legilmentor > to draw specific thoughts to the surface. And, if Snape's > suspicions had been true, it was a good way to protect Harry from an > evil influence. Sherry now: I don't know why this has never occurred to me before, but reading Betsy's post and then Alla's response suddenly made me sit up and think. In all the defending of Snape and discussing what he could or could not have learned doing legilimency on Harry, I just realized what an invasion, almost a mental rape that was. Harry's thoughts and feelings being read, without his consent or even his knowledge. I don't care who was doing it either--Snape, Dumbledore or Lupin--so I can't be accused of slandering poor sevvy. Harry doesn't even know the practice exists till OOTP, but we've often discussed here how Snape could have been using it on Harry all these years. It's even worse than Harry looking at Snape's memory once, because if we're correct, Snape, at least, has been doing it for years. Shudder. It would be one thing if people who are skilled at it can just sort of pick up stray thoughts and feelings, like getting an unexpected radio signal. However, if it is done deliberately, and we know now that wizards can do spells nonverbally as well as without wands, then it is a serious invasion of privacy at the very least, and something even worse, in my opinion. I am suddenly looking at the art of legilimency in a whole new light, and it makes me kind of sick to think it could have been routinely practiced on a child by one, two or even three adults. Sherry From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Tue Sep 20 14:43:17 2005 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:43:17 -0000 Subject: funniest line of the book!! In-Reply-To: <433012A8.60604@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140528 --- Jazmyn Concolor wrote: > > > Anna wrote: > > >Anna says: > >I never have the book in front of me when I want to reference > >something, but when Harry is making the euphoria potion for > >Sluggy's "make something amusing" lesson I got a huge laugh when > >Slughorn commended Harry on the use of mint (HBP's idea) that "would > >counter the side effects of singing and nose-tweaking." > > > > But, can you picture Snape having taken this potion and suffering said > side effects, which caused him to decide to add mint? And what other > side effects did he experience when coming up with his potion > improvements? If he experimented on himself a lot, he might have done > a lot of really odd things while in school that we can only barely imagine. > > The mind boggles at the mental image. A singing, nose-tweaking Snape on > the loose! > > Jazmyn and he still hasn't found a counter-potion to cure the side-effect of his greesy hair problem From ibchawz at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 14:58:46 2005 From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:58:46 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape and more Snape! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140529 > Elyse wrote: > And as a side thought, I think it was a sort of fitting punishment > that James, who was a bully, died to save his son, and in the > process left him to be bullied and abused, not by Snape, > but by the Dursleys for ten long years. > ibchawz responds: If I understand what you are saying here, you think it is fitting and proper that Harry should be bullied since his father was a bully. I just can't agree with Harry paying for the "sins of the father". Allow me to relate this to a RL example: My parents divorced when I was 13 because my father was unfaithful to my mother. Following your line of thought, it would be perfectly acceptable for my wife to be unfaithful to me. She could say that it was perfectly OK for her to do this since my father had done the same thing to my mother. Sorry, I just can't agree with this. ibchawz From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 15:14:37 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:14:37 -0000 Subject: Gravy/Essentialism/Snape/Ages/Werewolf/PopularHermione/Occlumency/Fidelius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140530 > Carol wrote in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140381 : > > << Her seventh year apparently coincides with Sirius's fourth year, > making her about three years older than he is. Since there's another > sister, Andromeda, in between Bellatrix and Narcissa, Narcissa is at > most one year older than Sirius and possibly in the same year as > MWPP and Snape. zgirnius: Carol, I'm guessing your assumption that Sirius is three years younger than Bella is based on his statement that he last saw her when he was 15. So you figure he saw her last when he finished his 4th year at Hogwarts, and she, her 7th. Catlady points out (below) that this is problematic based on Tonks' age... Catlady wrote: > If Andromeda is at most two years older than Sirius and James and > Lily, how was she old enough to have a daughter four years out of > Hogwarts when Harry was 15, in OoP? Andromeda's daughter Tonks was the > young Auror in OoP, in whose "Career Counselling" chapter McGonagall > said that it had been four years since the Auror department had taken > on any newbie. > > OoP started in summer of 1995 with Harry turning 15 because he was > born in July 1980. He still had 3 years of Hogwarts to go (OoP, HBP, > and the 7th book) so Tonks was at least 7 years older than him (3 of > Hogwarts, 4 of Aurory, plus possibly up to one year of having been > born later than the September 1 cut-off for Hogwarts). 15 + 7 = 22, > and 23 is more likely. Born in September 1972 thru August 1973 (hey, > same age as the Lexicon says Charlie is). If Sirius & James & Lily > were born 1959-1960, as seems to be believed nowdays, they were 20 > when Harry was born, and 2-years-older Andromeda was born 1957-1958 > (like me) and was 15 in 1972-3 when Tonks born. I can't believe that > the sisters weren't born Narcissa, Andromeda, Bellatrix instead of the > opposite order. zgirnius: Well, taking your math and Carol's math the birth order certainly seems wrong. But we know for sure that Bella is the oldest Black sister. Dumbledore says so in the scene of HBP where he explains to Harry that he is not sure whether 12 GP will go to Harry or to Bella. It would be Bella as the oldest surviving relative of Sirius. What if Sirius saw Bella well after she graduated Hogwarts? Sure, Sirius would not seek her out, but *she* might come to school/Hogsmeade herself. If Cissy were in the same year give or take one as Sirius, Bella might make such occasional visits to see her, and could have run into Sirius during one of them. (It seems certainly plausible that the sisters have had a close relationship at some point given what we see of their interaction in HBP). This would leave a lot more space to fit in Andromeda between Cissy and Bella, while letting her wait until after Hogwarts to have her daughter. And we can still put Cissy into SLytherin as an approximate contemporary of the Marauders and Snape. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Sep 20 16:00:40 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:00:40 -0000 Subject: Lagdogs?? (wasRe: re:Ages/) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140531 > zgirnius: > Well, taking your math and Carol's math the birth order certainly > seems wrong. But we know for sure that Bella is the oldest Black > sister. Dumbledore says so in the scene of HBP where he explains to > Harry that he is not sure whether 12 GP will go to Harry or to Bella. > It would be Bella as the oldest surviving relative of Sirius. Potioncat: I think we have another age problem like we did with the older Weasley kids. Must be something about that year group! (Tonks is in that age range.) We have several sets of facts. 1) Bella is the oldest of the sisters 2) Sirius hadn't seen Bella since he was Harry's age 3) Snape was part of a gang at Hogwarts that included Bella 4) Tonks is the middle sister's daughter; and must be about 7 years older than Harry. (based, IIRC on the last auror class being 4 years prior to career advice...I'm fuzzy on this one.)(Oh, heck, like I'm clear on the rest????) So with this information: Who had soup for dinner and who lives in a green house? Actually, does't that meant that Andromeda would have to be at least 4 years older than the Marauders? And Bella at least 5 years older. That would allow only 2 years for Bella and Snape to have in common. On the other hand, the "gang" as Sirius remembers it, could have spanned several years. I mean, in a way, Draco was part of a gang that included Montagu and Flint. Still, it's darn hard to imagine a first/second year kid hanging out with sixth/seventh years. Unless of course the Slytherins promoted the habit of younger kids "waiting on" the older ones and with a Head of House like Slughorn, it might have been common. This of course will add fuel to the "lapdog" theories. Particularly since Narcissa calls Severus an old friend of Lucius's. What do you think? From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Tue Sep 20 15:32:16 2005 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:32:16 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Apparition for Hagrid? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140532 Musicgal wrote: "Actually, one thing is bugging me. How did Hagrid get to GH before Sirius? He can't apparate or anything..." Geoff: Why not? I know he says that he is not allowed to do magic but does this count? Some people have also suggested that he might have Apparated when Harry left Paddington on the train home... `The train pulled out of the station. Harry wanted to watch Hagrid until he was out of sight; he rose in his seat and pressed his nose against the window but he blinked and Hagrid was gone.' (PS "Diagon Alley" p.66 UK edition) PJ answers: I do think Hagrid has his license to apparate. If he's doing odd jobs for Dumbledore and running errands for the school then he'd almost have to be able to. Granted he's not allowed to do magic but apparating isn't considered magic in the WW, it's a popular form of transportation. In the Muggle world people are not required to have finished school in order to get a driver's license. The only requirements for that is reaching a certain age and passing the driving test(s). Even people with criminal records are allowed a license! So, if Hagrid took the lessons (from Dumbledore maybe?) and passed the test, then I see no reason he would be denied that form of transportation. PJ From lealess at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 17:50:38 2005 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 17:50:38 -0000 Subject: Bonder in Unbreakable Vow Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140533 Has anyone talked about the function of the Bonder in the Unbreakable Vow? We have three rings of fire, and the person administering the vow holding a wand to create them. Do you suppose if Severus broke the Vow, Bellatrix would be obliged to come after him to force him to perform it? Even though I abhor violence, that would be a battle worth reading about (although I think the person to battle Bellatrix might be Neville, or maybe Narcissa). Would the Bonder be obliged to fulfill the Vow should the person making the oath not succeed (like in a surety bond, I believe, a promise to guarantee performance), i.e., would Bellatrix have to try to kill Albus herself? She's probably crazy enough and devoted enough to take on such an obligation. Or does the Bonder serve as a justice of the peace at a ceremony, where people might put their hands over a book and take a vow, i.e., is Bellatrix just a figurehead standing in for society's sanction? If she's just a figurehead, who does she represent? I figure it's the power of whatever magical branch governs the UV (Dark Arts if the punishment for violating the Vow is death, White Magic (is that the right term?) if everybody's making Vows as the WW stand-in for insurance). Whichever power it is, who is the enforcer? The Wizengamot? Or is the Bonder simply a witness? If so, where would Bellatrix give witness? The Wizengamot again? I don't remember this being discussed, but if it has, my apologies. As an aside, Severus made the Vow to Narcissa, not to Draco. Therefore, when Draco comes of age, I do not believe the Vow is discharged, as the promise still belongs to Narcissa. I do wonder if she can forgive it at any point. lealess From darqali at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 16:43:09 2005 From: darqali at yahoo.com (darqali) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:43:09 -0000 Subject: Apparition for Hagrid? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140534 > PJ answers: > I do think Hagrid has his license to apparate. If he's doing odd jobs for > Dumbledore and running errands for the school then he'd almost have to be > able to. Granted he's not allowed to do magic but apparating isn't > considered magic in the WW, it's a popular form of transportation. When Hagrid and Harry leave the shack [in the early chapters of SS/PS] we don't see a second boat, and Hagrid says he "flew" there. Yet in OOTP Hagrid tells Umbridge he does not fly as no broom would hold him, and of course in SS/PS we don't see a broom, either. I assumed, after reading OOTP where we learned about Thestrals, that Hagrid had come to that island .... "flown" .... aboard a Thestral. He may have left the station that way, too. Only those who have wittnessed Death can see Thestrals, after all, and I perhaps if you are flying aboard one, you can't be seen either. P.S. We are never told how the Durselys got off that island, since Harry and Hagrid took the only boat. I have had a lot of fun speculating about that. Odd that Harry was not punished for leaving them stranded, though, and we are never told he was. Darqali. From darqali at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 16:32:25 2005 From: darqali at yahoo.com (darqali) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:32:25 -0000 Subject: That Fateful Night at Godric's Hollow Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140535 First, there has been much speculation as to how various persons communicated with one-another after the fateful events which left Harry scarred and turned LV into Vapormort. Cannon tells us how many messages were passed after the event: Owls ! They were all over the place even in daylight and the Muggles remarked at their odd daylight appearance on their news. We now know that {at least some} wizards able to cast a Patronus {clearly, not all can!} can use them as messengers. And then Dumbledore has Falkes the pheonix as well. Second, we have *no cannon* to tell us *who was there * in Godric's Hollow apart from LV, Lily, James and Harry. Yet we know *there must have been someone* for several reason, among them: The WW knew, and very quickly, that LV was *gone* or *broken* {not necessiarly *dead*, and speculation on that was rife} and *also* that Harry's parents were dead, but that Harry himself was alive {He was immediately dubbed "the Boy Who Lived"}; and indeed, that Harry's survival was somehow tied to LV's fall, though the *specifics* were murky. We get all this from Hagrid's explainations to Harry when the first meet, as well as from the very first chapter of PS/SS. We have no specific cannon to tell us *who was there*, however. Yet *someone* on the "Light" side must have been, for the news to be out so swiftly .... Yes, LV's fall would perhaps have "undone" many curses or spells LV had cast, which would have alerted any affected by such to know he had "fallen". Yet that was not *all* they knew, for Harry's involvment and survival was *also* clearly known, and seemingly *at once*. We can speculate, and among the most obvious persons to have been at Godric's Hollow are Peter Pettigrew and Sirius Black. But Pettigrew would not have sent word to Dumbledore nor spread rumors of the events causing his master's fall. He was obviously intent on fleeing and saving his little rat hide. Sirius was clearly mainly going rat-hunting, and Dumbledore would have little reason to trust him, for Dumbledore believed Sirius to be the Potter's Secret Keeper, and therefore would very likely have considered Sirius a traitor. When I questioned, "How did LV get his wand back?", the answer was that probably Pettigrew pocketed it, and that it remained "in his pocket" when his clothes were transfigured into rat fur during his years of hiding. [Interesting. If that is so, then Peter had LV's wand {and *maybe* his own, too?} in his pocket when he was forced to resume human form in the Shrieking Shack .... yet he never reached for it .... One wonders why not, and what might have happened if LV's wand had come into play in that room, with Harry's wand also there ..... but of course, it didn't. But neither the name Peter, nor Sirius, answers the question, "Who alerted the whole WW of the events at Godric's Hollow?" One thinks there must have been someone else there. The specifics of the event were broadcast almost *immediately* .... hence, the celebrations. As for how Dumbledore knew where the Potters were, and/or how he told Hagrid to go there, that is not a problem to me. The fact that the Potters were in hiding does not mean *no one* knew where they were, any more than the fact that Grimould Place was hidden meant that "no one" knew where it was, nor how to get there. *Several people* {or even *many people*} many have known the Potter's location, just as *many people* (including under-age school children; including Snape) knew and could go to Grimould Place .... But they could not *reveal* that location to LV or his supporters because of the charm placed upon the secret. I assume Dumbledore knew the Potter's location. Dumbledore could have gone to the Potters at any time. And Hagrid may also have known; he was, I blieve, in the OOTP. In any event, with the Potter's death, the secret was broken and so even if *only* Dumbledore and a handful of others {such as Sirius and Lupin} knew, Dumbledore could have sent a Hagrid who *didn't* know to Godric's Hollow. There was no longer a secret to keep. Aside: recently Hagrid's first speech to Harry about his parents was recounted, and again I note Hagrid says James was Head Boy. The sequence given elsewhere is that students are selected as Prefects in their 5 th year, and then Head Boy and Girl are chosen from among the Prefects in their final year. Yet we know Lupin was Prefect, not James. So how did James become Head Boy, seeing he was not first a Prefect? Darqali. From manawydan at ntlworld.com Tue Sep 20 18:14:31 2005 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:14:31 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hagrid in GH References: <1127179312.3286.36916.m26@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <000e01c5be0f$2705b700$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 140536 Saraquel wrote: > Hagrid could well have laid low in the Welsh valleys (sparsley > populated countryside) during the day and set off after light fell. > If it took him 4 or 5 hours, that would get him to Privet Drive late > evening. The Welsh valleys are actually urban and quite heavily populated, so unless there was a safe house there, I can't see him going that way. Unless you're thinking about that witch (whose name I forget) who got off the Knight Bus in Abergavenny... hwyl Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From drjuliehoward at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 18:21:54 2005 From: drjuliehoward at yahoo.com (fanofminerva) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:21:54 -0000 Subject: Bonder in Unbreakable Vow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140537 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lealess" wrote: > Has anyone talked about the function of the Bonder in the Unbreakable > Vow? We have three rings of fire, and the person administering the > vow holding a wand to create them. Do you suppose if Severus broke > the Vow, Bellatrix would be obliged to come after him to force him to > perform it? Even though I abhor violence, that would be a battle > worth reading about (although I think the person to battle Bellatrix > might be Neville, or maybe Narcissa). > > Would the Bonder be obliged to fulfill the Vow should the person > making the oath not succeed (like in a surety bond, I believe, a > promise to guarantee performance), i.e., would Bellatrix have to try > to kill Albus herself? She's probably crazy enough and devoted > enough to take on such an obligation. > > Or does the Bonder serve as a justice of the peace at a ceremony, > where people might put their hands over a book and take a vow, i.e., > is Bellatrix just a figurehead standing in for society's sanction? > If she's just a figurehead, who does she represent? I figure it's > the power of whatever magical branch governs the UV (Dark Arts if the > punishment for violating the Vow is death, White Magic (is that the > right term?) if everybody's making Vows as the WW stand-in for > insurance). Whichever power it is, who is the enforcer? The > Wizengamot? > > Or is the Bonder simply a witness? If so, where would Bellatrix give > witness? The Wizengamot again? > > I don't remember this being discussed, but if it has, my apologies. > > As an aside, Severus made the Vow to Narcissa, not to Draco. > Therefore, when Draco comes of age, I do not believe the Vow is > discharged, as the promise still belongs to Narcissa. I do wonder if > she can forgive it at any point. > > lealess I posted about this awhile back (see message #136726) but had only one responder. I hope you have more luck because I, too, wonder about the role of the bonder. Also, once the vow has been fulfilled, what happens? Is the person "released" from the bond, having fulfilled it once? Or does it extend for the lives of the ones involved? My opinion is that it would be fulfilled and all parties would be released. Julie From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 18:54:43 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:54:43 -0000 Subject: Snape's future (Was: Snape's other books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140538 > Potioncat: > Well, there are some nice caves not too far from Hogsmeade. He can > hang from the ceiling there..erm I mean...hang out there. Of course, > the first time he saw words carved in the cave wall "Padfoot was > here" he'd go ballistic. Alla: LOLOL. Not only I am bookmarking this post of yours,I am printing it out and putting it near my computer ( at home of course, not at work, people may hear me laughing very loud then). I think that if Snape sees such writing on the wall, he may want immediately change the place of his hanging.... erm hiding. > > Potioncat: You bring up a good point, > Snape could end up in Azkaban. If so, I'm sure we'll get the scene > where he's tossed into his cell and the first thing he sees is > writing on the wall "Padfoot was here". There's no dementors there > now. I wonder how much contact the inmates have? Hiding at Malfoy > Manor might work as well. I don't think the MoM has found all the > secrets in the that house. (I don't want want to picture him with > Bella though.) Alla: Well, seriously speaking and I am not sure if I can speak seriously after reading your post ( just house for sale bit which I snipped was hilarious :-)) I think that ending up in Azkaban would be very GOOD ending for Snape. That is of course if one believes in killing of Dumbledore for whatever reasons good or bad BUT not on Dumbledore's orders. If you believe in killing on DD orders than of course Snape should get off punishment free. If one is hoping for ESE! Snape, but is willing to settle for OFH! Snape.... well, then I would think that going to Azkaban would mean Snape surviving the war, doing some kind of redemptive act, sort of and feeling remorse for killing Dumbledore, deciding to go serve some kind of sentence in Azkaban. Hmmm, speculation IS fun. > Potioncat, who will add that the resolution will be clear that he is > DDM!Snape or else the ending will prove to some of us that he > maintained his cover to the very end. Alla: " or else" :-) JMO of course, Alla From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 20 19:08:15 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:08:15 -0000 Subject: Hagrid in GH In-Reply-To: <000e01c5be0f$2705b700$704b6d51@f3b7j4> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140539 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "manawydan" wrote: > Saraquel wrote: > > Hagrid could well have laid low in the Welsh valleys (sparsley > > populated countryside) during the day and set off after light fell. > > If it took him 4 or 5 hours, that would get him to Privet Drive late > > evening. > > The Welsh valleys are actually urban and quite heavily populated, so unless > there was a safe house there, I can't see him going that way. > > Unless you're thinking about that witch (whose name I forget) who got off > the Knight Bus in Abergavenny... > > hwyl > > Ffred > > O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon > Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion > Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri Geoff: Yes... but I would hardly think that you could classify Y Fenni as being in the Welsh valleys. I would imagine Madam Marsh (to jog your memory) as living halfway up the Skirrid! From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 19:37:22 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:37:22 -0000 Subject: Lagdogs?? (wasRe: re:Ages/) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140540 > Potioncat: > I think we have another age problem like we did with the older > Weasley > kids. Must be something about that year group! (Tonks is in that age > range.) > Neri: I'm contemplating a new theory, something about an experimental time turner that was used at Hogwarts during those years. An accidental time slip happened and several years were spent in a time loop. These were the years of Charlie's winning streak and the years that Tonks had lost . > Potioncat: > We have several sets of facts. > 1) Bella is the oldest of the sisters > 2) Sirius hadn't seen Bella since he was Harry's age > 3) Snape was part of a gang at Hogwarts that included Bella > 4) Tonks is the middle sister's daughter; and must be about 7 years > older than Harry. (based, IIRC on the last auror class being 4 years > prior to career advice...I'm fuzzy on this one.)(Oh, heck, like I'm > clear on the rest????) > Neri: You are very nearly correct. Auror training is actually only 3 years, but in the beginning of OotP Tonks says to Harry that she qualified as an Auror "a year ago", so it's been at least 4 years since she had left Hogwarts, and she must be at least 22. Harry is 15 at the time so she's at least 7 years older than him. > Potioncat: > So with this information: Who had soup for dinner and who lives in a > green house? > Neri: Search me. But I can tell you what is Dumbledore's favorite jam flavor. > Potioncat: > Actually, does't that meant that Andromeda would have to be at least > 4 > years older than the Marauders? And Bella at least 5 years older. > That > would allow only 2 years for Bella and Snape to have in common. > Neri: Another possibility that was proposed to me (can't remember by whom) is that Bella and Andromeda are twins. Bella is still the oldest but they're in the same year. Bella *can* be more than 3 years older than Sirius. When he says he saw her last when he was 15, it's possible that he means he saw her last at the Black house, after she had already left Hogwarts. He was 15 and she could be 19 or even 20. It seems that she's not as old as Lucius (who is 6 years older than the Marauders) because Sirius mentioned her in the gang, but didn't mention Lucius. So I'd estimate she's 3-5 years older than the Marauders. Suppose she's 5 years older and Andromeda is her twin. Since we concluded above that Tonks is 7 years older than Harry, it would mean that Andromeda had Tonks when she was 2 years younger than Lily was when she had Harry. Seems possible. > Potioncat: > On the other hand, the "gang" as Sirius remembers it, could have > spanned several years. I mean, in a way, Draco was part of a gang > that > included Montagu and Flint. Still, it's darn hard to imagine a > first/second year kid hanging out with sixth/seventh years. > > Unless of course the Slytherins promoted the habit of younger > kids "waiting on" the older ones and with a Head of House like > Slughorn, it might have been common. This of course will add fuel to > the "lapdog" theories. Particularly since Narcissa calls Severus an > old > friend of Lucius's. > > What do you think? Neri: There's definitely something going on between Lucius and Snape. Remember in the end of GoF Snape made "a sudden movement" when Harry told Fudge that Lucius was in the DEs circle. We still need to find out what was that about. Also, did Snape know during VW1 that Lucius and his gang are DEs? If so, why didn't he turn them in to the Ministry after Voldemort's defeat at GH? In the case of Bella and Rodolpho that would have prevented the attack on the Longbottoms. Neri From ragingjess at hotmail.com Tue Sep 20 19:50:54 2005 From: ragingjess at hotmail.com (Jessica Bathurst) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:50:54 -0400 Subject: Lagdogs?? (wasRe: re:Ages/) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140541 >Potioncat: >We have several sets of facts. >1) Bella is the oldest of the sisters >2) Sirius hadn't seen Bella since he was Harry's age >3) Snape was part of a gang at Hogwarts that included Bella >4) Tonks is the middle sister's daughter; and must be about 7 years older than Harry. (based, IIRC on the last auror class being 4 years prior to career advice...I'm fuzzy on this one.)(Oh, heck, like I'm clear on the rest????) >On the other hand, the "gang" as Sirius remembers it, could have >spanned several years. I mean, in a way, Draco was part of a gang >that included Montagu and Flint. Still, it's darn hard to imagine a >first/second year kid hanging out with sixth/seventh years. Here's a question: is it at all possible that the gang that Sirius remembers Snape hanging out with are folks he acquired in his last two years of Hogwarts? He's alone in the penseive memory, but I thought that incident happened right after OWLs. Snape would still have a couple more years of school. His relationship with Lucius could have developed outside of school. (Also, I don't have the books with me, so forgive me if this is incorrect: Sirius doesn't specify Bella in his statement, does he? I remember him saying: "a gang who almost all turned out to be Death Eaters.") Perhaps a disaffected Snape turned to the Death-Eaters-to-be after his public humiliation? It's more logical storywise for "the gang" (sans Kool, I'd guess) to be older than Snape, but potioncat is right - I don't know many 17-year-old who hang out with 11-year-olds. Maybe boarding school is different. Does this affect the chronology at all? Yours, Jessica P.S. If Snape is just playing Lucius in his role as double agent, is it a "lap-dog-and-pony-show"? (Don't get up - I'll smack myself.) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Sep 20 19:55:58 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:55:58 -0000 Subject: Bonder in Unbreakable Vow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140542 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lealess" wrote: > Has anyone talked about the function of the Bonder in the > Unbreakable Vow? We have three rings of fire, and the person > administering the vow holding a wand to create them. Do you > suppose if Severus broke the Vow, Bellatrix would be obliged to > come after him to force him to perform it? Even though I abhor > violence, that would be a battle worth reading about (although I > think the person to battle Bellatrix might be Neville, or maybe > Narcissa). Jen: Since we don't see Severus break the vow, this is mostly speculative. All we have to go on is Ron's comment that a person dies if he/she breaks an Unbreakable. I'm thinking death occurs the moment a person fails to perform the task, and the magical universe just *knows* when the Vow-taker fails. Like the Goblet of Fire in a way--we don't exactly know why Harry had to compete, but Dumbledore said he did and we just have to believe him :). This seems like the only impartial way to have it work, because it would be a judgement call if the bonder or the person requesting the vow is responsible for determining the UV was broken. If Snape hadn't killed DD on the tower, but run with Draco instead, he could claim Draco was still working on killing Dumbledore to Bellatrix or Narcissa. But the magical universe doesn't need to make any judgements, it would just strike Snape down the moment he made the choice not to kill Dumbledore because Draco already failed, and Snape would have passed up the chance to fulfill the final clause of the UV. So, Blammmo! You only get one chance, I think, which is why Snape had to make the decision on the tower between 'him or me'. And what is this arbiter of justice, the magical universe I refer to? Well, it's sort of like the Force in Star Wars, you aren't entirely sure, but it's there, it's important, and it explains the inexplicable. Until it doesn't, and then we shore it up because the facts are sort of sketchy. lealess: > Or does the Bonder serve as a justice of the peace at a ceremony, > where people might put their hands over a book and take a vow, > i.e., is Bellatrix just a figurehead standing in for society's > sanction? If she's just a figurehead, who does she represent? I > figure it's the power of whatever magical branch governs the UV > (Dark Arts if the punishment for violating the Vow is death, White > Magic (is that the right term?) if everybody's making Vows as the > WW stand-in for insurance). Whichever power it is, who is the > enforcer? The Wizengamot? Jen: I think about the Vow in more ethereal terms than this, more like a life debt than a legally sanctioned vow. The bonder is only there for mechanical reasons, to perform the magic that binds the two people together and then washes her hands of the outcome. lealess: > As an aside, Severus made the Vow to Narcissa, not to Draco. > Therefore, when Draco comes of age, I do not believe the Vow is > discharged, as the promise still belongs to Narcissa. I do wonder > if she can forgive it at any point. Jen: When the deed is done, the vow is done. That's my take on it. There's nothing binding them together anymore, Severus is released. Well, you know, as much as he can be in the circumstances. Jen From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 20 20:17:29 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:17:29 -0000 Subject: Snape's future (Was: Snape's other books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140543 Carol: > > I've been wondering the same thing. I'm sure the Aurors will > > search his office (and Spinner's End, if they can find it) quite > > thoroughly. Potioncat: > But even more interesting, Snape was said to belong to a gang that > included Bella, yet she's surprised that he lives here. Narcissa, on > the other hand, knows just where it is. She hurries there with no > apparant problem. Has she been here before? Hmm, was there a dish of > ACID POPS on the side table? > There doesn't appear to be any charms on the house that would make > it hard to find. So either Snape and Pettigrew had better pack up > quick, or Snape had better begin the incantations! (That would, of > course, make him "Prince, charming".) SSSusan: Do we know whether others know where Spinner's End is? Yes, Narcissa- sweetie knows (and, Neri, this might be good evidence for ACID POPS), but who else does? Does Snapey have frequent visitors? I cannot imagine it! Does the WW have the equivalent of the white pages or anywho.com to locate people? Well, yes, owls, but if the house has been made unplottable, for instance? Who would've been aware of the location? Who would Snape have allowed to know? Yes, you're right, Potioncat, that there don't *appear* to be any charms on the house, but maybe that's because we only see Narcissa arriving (and Bella coat-tailing). Maybe she's been there several times before? Perhaps she's an exception ? she has "pass-through privileges" or, as with 12 GP & the Order, there are a select few who've been let in on the location via Secret Keeping. Alright, that's weak. If it were unplottable, presumably Bella wouldn't even have been able to SEE it, even if Narcissa could. So, it probably is unlikely that Snape can return to Spinner's End... unless he went there immediately upon leaving Hogwarts, before the Aurors had a chance to go after him. Carol: > > But I've also been thinking of what Snape is going to do now. If > > the Aurors question Narcissa Malfoy (and I'll bet they will since > > Draco is an accessory to murder as well as being guilty of > > attempted murder and various other crimes), she could give away > > Snape's hiding place. Potioncat: > Unless of course, Spinner's End is charmed in some way and > Draco has to hide there too. SSSusan: I already shared my thoughts on that, above. But, Carol, why *would* Narcissa give it away? Or do you mean she'd be forced to do so? I'm rather more fond of the idea that Snape & Draco will hide out somewhere else. Who was it who suggested under the boardwalk, as it were, at the Malfoys' manor? Something like that, or some special place Voldy has set aside for secret meetings or hideaways. Potioncat: > Well, there are some nice caves not too far from Hogsmeade. He can > hang from the ceiling there..erm I mean...hang out there. Of course, > the first time he saw words carved in the cave wall "Padfoot was > here" he'd go ballistic. SSSusan: Snort! Wouldn't that be a hoot? I could see Snape hanging out in a (non-Siriusly-tainted) cave, but I couldn't see Draco hanging out there WITH him. Snape might have to ditch the kid somewhere safe and go solo. Since I believe in DDM!Snape, I also think he'll *want* to ditch the kid and go solo. Carol: > > What happens next? Is he still bound by the vow to protect Draco, > > even though Draco is now a "man," having turned seventeen on June > > 5? Potioncat: > I read the UV as being completed with the death of DD, but if not, > I'd think Draco's coming of age would finish it. Since coming of age > completes the blood protection with Harry's family. SSSusan: I'm in agreement that the death of DD ended Snape's UV obligation to Draco. I can't imagine that his coming of age would have anything to do with that, frankly. I mean, surely a UV could be established between parties of any ages, so why would Draco's coming of age end the vow? No, if it's complete, it's because Snape upheld his end of the bargain by killing DD. OTOH, I still can't quite imagine Snape abandoning Draco. He might not keep him with him long while he's on the run ? I could see him arranging for his safe deposit *somewhere* -- but I can't imagine his lugging Draco along with him. The only way I think Snape would stay with Draco long is if they both end up hiding at the Malfoys'. Potioncat: > Snape could end up in Azkaban. If so, I'm sure we'll get the scene > where he's tossed into his cell and the first thing he sees is > writing on the wall "Padfoot was here". SSSusan: Hee. His tormentor forever, huh? ;-) Seriously, I don't think Snape will end up in Azkaban. Though if he did, we might get to see some highly entertaining interaction between Snape & Lucius! ["What were you doing with My Woman, Snape?" demanded Lucius. "No, no, Lucius, you've got it all wrong! I was simply doing all I could to assist your precious progeny," snivelled Snape. Heh.] Potioncat: > My guess is that we won't see any of the Dumbledore Murder > Investigation either. Unless Arthur is either part of it or hears > about it and tells us, erm, I mean, tells Harry about it. SSSusan: I think this is highly likely, myself ? that Arthur will be in on or aware of the investigation... or that Harry will be in touch with Moody, Tonks or Shacklebolt, who'll be investigating. Potioncat: > I really expect we'll either see almost nothing of Snape, or we'll > see an absolutely horrible Snape until the end. At the end we'll get > some big scene which will prove at last which side he has been on. SSSusan: While I don't care if we're led to believe in an absolutely horrible Snape `til the end, I do hope you're wrong about seeing almost nothing of Snape 'til the end. I would like to see periodic Snape updates throughout book 7. Not that I have a CLUE what he'll be doing or how Harry will be responding to news of his whereabouts/alleged activities/offers of assistance or whatever the hell is going to be coming. But I'd like to *not* spend the whole book waiting & wondering or getting no Harry thoughts/responses. Siriusly Snapey Susan, still chuckling over "Padfoot was here." From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Sep 20 20:54:37 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:54:37 -0000 Subject: Lapdogs?? (wasRe: re:Ages/) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140544 Jessica wrote: > Here's a question: is it at all possible that the gang that Sirius > remembers Snape hanging out with are folks he acquired in his last two years > of Hogwarts? Potioncat: Here's the gang according to Sirius from GoF chp 27: "Snape knew more curses when he arrivd at school than half the kids in seventh year, and he was part of a gang of Slytherins who nearly all turned out to be Death Eaters." ... "Rosier and Wilkes...The Lestranges--they're a married couple-- ...Avery... But as far as I know, Snape was never even accused of being a Death Eater..." Now, I suddenly read that passage differently. I always read it as "he arrived knowing" and later "he was part of" But what if he arrived knowing more curses and was already a part of a gang? Maybe someone here is a Prince cousin? A an older cousin who refers to ickle Sevvie as the "Half-blood Prince"? But, to the point. Bella is mentioned; Lucius isn't. According to the Lexicon Lucius was born in 54; Snape in 59 or 60. If Snape developed a friendship after school, Sirius wouldn't know about it. Because in PoA we discover that Sirius knew nothing about Snape after they left school. The "lapdog" taunt from OoP could have been only about the current relationship between Snape and Malfoy or it could reflect to the school days. So, the relationship with the gang had to happen before Snape's last two years; all of the ones we know the ages for would have finished earlier. Potioncat: who really posted this time to correct the error in the subject line. All the other errors have to stand. From AllieS426 at aol.com Tue Sep 20 21:26:27 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:26:27 -0000 Subject: Apparition for Hagrid? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140545 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "darqali" wrote: > P.S. We are never told how the Durselys got off that island, since > Harry and Hagrid took the only boat. I have had a lot of fun > speculating about that. Odd that Harry was not punished for leaving > them stranded, though, and we are never told he was. > > > Darqali. The Dursleys were terrified of Harry when he came back from Hogwarts, they probably didn't want to instigate! What I think is *fabulous* about that chapter is how many times Hagrid is described as "the giant" and it never, ever entered my mind (nor Ron Weasley's, and he knew that giants existed!) that he might LITERALLY BE a giant. Although, I didn't start the series until the first 4 were already out, so I had only read the first book once by the time I got to GoF.) Allie From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Sep 20 21:45:03 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:45:03 -0000 Subject: Bonder in Unbreakable Vow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140546 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lealess" wrote: > Has anyone talked about the function of the Bonder in the Unbreakable > Vow? Pippin: I think it's just a device Jo came up with to explain why Voldemort didn't use the UV to keep his death eaters faithful. He would never trust his fate to a third party, or kneel before anyone else. Pippin From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 21:51:31 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:51:31 -0000 Subject: Harry, Snape and James (was:Re: Sadistic!Snape?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140547 > >>Alla: > OK, I am incredibly confused now. Betsy Hp: Oops! That's not the reaction I was going for. > >>Alla: > Could we get something out of the way first? :-) > You are not saying anymore that by bringing James Snape was trying > to stop Harry from emulating his father, correct? > Betsy Hp: Right. You snipped that part of my post, but in the opening paragraph I stated that you were correct, it makes no sense for Snape to take that route (attacking James) if his end goal is to wean Harry away from James. > >>Alla: > So, if we ARE got it out of the way, could you clarify your > argument for me, please? > You are saying that after trip in Hogsmead: > 1. Snape wants Harry to think about James by insulting him ( OK, I > understand it so far, but don't see how that would keep Harry > safe). > 2. Snape is hoping by legilimising Harry to find a prove of > Lupin's guilt (?) while Harry is thinking about James. > Is that what you are saying? Why would Harry think of Lupin's > guilt while he is feeling insulted for his dad? Betsy Hp: Not exactly. Let my try and clarify: First, we know for a fact that Snape suspects Lupin of helping Sirius. That we can agree on, right? Second, we know Lupin *is* keeping something from Dumbledore (Sirius is an animagus) and feels bad about doing so. I think this is also an agreed upon fact, yes? And third, I *think* we can agree that sneaking into Hogsmeade was an incredibly dangerous thing for Harry to do from the view point of anyone within that time period of the story. (Sirius, and Pettigrew I guess, were the only two who knew that Harry was actually quite safe.) Okay, so with all those facts in front of us, I added another one. This is the first time in three years that Snape says anything to Harry about James. Which leads me to a question: If his motivation was merely to cause Harry pain by attacking his father, why would Snape wait until right then to do so? What was Snape's motivation in bringing up and insulting James at that specific time? This is where I start to make some educated (or I think so anyway ) guesses. First, Snape obviously knows there's something special about the one-eyed witch Harry uses to get to Hogsmeade. My speculation is that Snape connects it with the Marauders. (The map suggests that they did use that particular pathway themselves, back in the day.) And from the Marauders, Snape seizes onto Lupin. >From Snape's POV, Lupin would certainly try and lure Harry out of the castle into Sirius's easy reach. And what better way to do so than to fill Harry's head with stories of his father's glory days? Harry (no stranger to risk taking) would love to emulate his father and sneak into Hogsmeade. (Again, this is Snape's POV I'm talking about.) So that's what I think Snape suspects occured. (How else would Harry learn the secret to the one-eyed witch?) He's questioning Harry, Harry is keeping his mouth shut. But if Snape nudges him, gets his dander up, maybe a memory will shake loose enough for Snape to pick up. (And I do think Snape hopes for something to shake loose rather than he go diving into Harry's head. Something Snape could do, certainly, but something I'm betting is frowned upon.) > >>Alla: > I want to say that you are giving Snape way too much credit here, > but I am not even clear what this credit is for. And I am not > kidding. Betsy Hp: I don't think I'm giving Snape any sort of credit. Actually, I'm saying that he's a suspicious man who's always ready to suspect the worst, especially when it comes to Harry. Something I think you could agree with? > >>Alla: > Is the gist of your argument that by insulting James Snape was > hoping to catch Lupin and thus protect Harry? > If I am right, wouldn't it be much MORE logical for Snape to > insult Lupin in front of Harry and hoping that Harry would think > about the instructions which Lupin supposedly gave to him? I don't > get it at all. Betsy Hp: Snape would give Lupin more credit than that, I think. (After all, from Snape's POV, Lupin has managed to fool Dumbledore.) It would be too obvious for Lupin to say, "*I* did such and such," but to say "I remember when James snuck through the one-eyed witch..., etc, etc." would be much more subtle and much more likely to catch Harry's attention. No, I think Snape suspected Harry went about his Hogsmeade adventure with his thoughts filled with his father. So, it would have accomplished him nothing to insult Lupin. > >>Alla: > OK, let's forget PoA for a minute. What about HBP? What "good' > reason Snape has for insulting James here in front of Harry? Betsy Hp: No good reason that I can see. Snape *does* hate James, so I don't think he's always got some altruistic reason for speaking ill of him. Of course, I don't think it's always about Harry either. > >>Alla: > I think it was Nora who said that it seems that Snape spent more > time in HBP obsessing about James ( I am talking in relative terms > of Snape screentime of course) than Harry was. Betsy Hp: Hmmm. I skimmed through HBP looking for Snape talking about James and he does it only twice, that I found. Once in Harry's detention and again in his last scene. Considering all the class time Harry spent with Snape that is a tiny amount, IMO. (It was off page, yes, but I think if Snape spent classtime casually insulting James, Harry would think about when we *do* see him. Instead Harry's mostly thinking about Draco.) > >>Alla: > So far I remain convinced that the main reason Snape keeps > bringing up James is to cause Harry pain and that again makes me > doubt Snape remorse, but we shall see of course. Betsy Hp: 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. > >>Alla: > I especially wonder what purpose could that sentence have except > to get back at Harry, or to get back at James through his son. > "And you'd turn my inventions on me, like your filthy father, > would you? I don't think so... no!" - p.604, HBP > I am guessing you would find some logical reason for this > sentence... Betsy Hp: No, I think this was pure emotion, IMO. No logic or clear intent, I think. Snape is in a huge amount of pain at this point (if we go by his facial expression) so I'm doubting he was too caught up in thinking, "Now, how will this affect Harry?" in either a good or a wicked way. > >>Alla: > I cannot find any, except intent to cause more pain to the boy > whose mentor he killed in front of his eyes ( for whatever reason, > if I may add). Betsy Hp: Hmmm, I really doubt Snape was *that* focused on Harry, for good or ill. Especially at that point in time. Mainly he was focused on getting away. Sure, he keeps Harry from using Unforgivables, and gives him a quick lesson in dueling, but I really didn't see any gloating going on. I think Snape was just *reacting* to Harry, rather than trying to get Harry to react to him. > >>Alla: > If Snape did not want to hurt Harry more, I would think he would > dissappear without saying anything. After all, it does not > seem that he had much problem deflecting Harry's curses. Betsy Hp: No problem, *once he turned to face Harry*. The only reason Harry didn't stun Snape while his back was turned was because his aim was off. Snape is far and above a better dueler than Harry, but Harry isn't completely harmless. Snape would have been a fool to ignore that first stunning curse, because the next one could well have hit him. (And then were would Draco be? ) > >>Alla: > Maybe he wanted to continue the fun? Not killing Harry of course, > but hurting him emotionally and physically. > Betsy Hp: You know what would have been a perfect way to hurt Harry? Kill Hagrid. Or kill Buckbeak for that matter. Snape could have done it. And he had the time. Why didn't he? Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 21:54:00 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:54:00 -0000 Subject: Severus Unbound (Was: Bonder in Unbreakable Vow) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140548 lealess wrote: > > Has anyone talked about the function of the Bonder in the Unbreakable Vow? We have three rings of fire, and the person administering the vow holding a wand to create them. Do you suppose if Severus broke the Vow, Bellatrix would be obliged to come after him to force him to perform it? > > > > Or does the Bonder serve as a justice of the peace at a ceremony, where people might put their hands over a book and take a vow, i.e., is Bellatrix just a figurehead standing in for society's > sanction? > > As an aside, Severus made the Vow to Narcissa, not to Draco. Therefore, when Draco comes of age, I do not believe the Vow is discharged, as the promise still belongs to Narcissa. I do wonder if she can forgive it at any point. Julie responded: > I posted about this awhile back (see message #136726) but had only > one responder. I hope you have more luck because I, too, wonder > about the role of the bonder. Also, once the vow has been > fulfilled, what happens? Is the person "released" from the bond, > having fulfilled it once? Or does it extend for the lives of the > ones involved? My opinion is that it would be fulfilled and all > parties would be released. Carol adds: If Severus Snape broke his *Unbreakable* Vow, there would be no need for Bellatrix to come after him to force him to fulfill it. He would be dead. (That's the whole point of his terrible choice on the tower: kill Dumbledore or die, and the whole reason for the debate over why Snape would allow himself to be trapped into such a dangerous magical obligation.) I think Bellatrix's role corresponds (ironically) to that of a priest or minister in a marriage ceremony. She bonds Severus to Narcissa with "rings" of fire, but he's bound to Narcissa, not to her. To pursue the analogy (which I realize is only an illustration, not proof), a priest or minister has no further obligation to a married couple after the ceremony is performed. If one of them breaks the marriage vows, the minister is not obligated to keep them in his or her place. The third provision has been fulfilled (DD is really dead, or else Snape would be dead). But I'm not sure about the provisions to help and protect Draco. Yes, the vow was made to Narcissa, but they may have applied only to this specific situation. Snape got Draco safely off the Hogwarts grounds, but we have no idea what happened to them afterwards. (My guess is that Snape persuaded Voldemort that Draco made the killing of DD possible by fixing the vanishing cabinet and letting the DEs into Hogwarts; certainly DD would not be dead if it had not been for Draco's actions. But of course I could be completely wrong here.) If the vow related only to the specific situation, Snape is free of all three provisions. If they end with Draco's coming of age, he's also free. But I don't see any evidence in the wording of the vow that either possibility is the case. In other words, I think Snape is still bound by provisions one and two until Narcissa chooses to release him. And it may be that Bellatrix will have to perform the countercharm to unbind him, revealing and removing the two remaining rings of fire with her wands as Narcissa speaks the words. The vow itself requires the participation of three people. I'm guessing that the same three people are needed to release the bound person from the vow. Maybe Narcissa will be sufficiently grateful to Severus for saving her son from the Death Eaters and for "doing the deed" that saves him from becoming a murderer (as opposed to accessory to murder and several other crimes) that she'll release Snape from his vow. But as far as I can see, Bellatrix, the bonder, is under no obligation herself to carry out the remaining provisions of the vow (to help and protect Draco), and there's no reason for her to hound Snape into doing it, either. He knows quite well that the consequence of breaking an Unbreakable Vow is death. Carol From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Sep 20 21:59:42 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:59:42 -0000 Subject: Why are wizards so incompetent? /Evil Overlords/ Some LOTR In-Reply-To: <193.4870a090.30608c60@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140549 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Meliss9900 at a... wrote: > Ok I'm intrigued. > > Pippin, why do you think that Harry is acting like an idiot now. I agree that he has had his idiotic moments but I don't think he was having one when last we saw him. Pippin: Understand, I'm not a Harry-basher. But I don't think he's using his best judgement. He's acting like every sixteen year old who thought he knew more than his old man. Harry knows from first year that you can get a completely wrong idea of a conversation by listening to just part of it, that Snape and Dumbledore could not communicate openly in front of four Death Eaters, that Snape and Dumbledore are both experts at legilimency, that Dumbledore's actions have never made sense to him until they were explained, and that Dumbledore was withholding the explanations. He wiped blood away from the body, after being told that an avada kedavra curse should leave no sign. He hasn't stopped to wonder about any of these things. He's just taken it for granted that Snape murdered Dumbledore, based mostly on the way Snape has treated him, which is no more sensible than judging Sirius by the way he treated Kreacher. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 22:23:12 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:23:12 -0000 Subject: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks Snape is guilty? Was: Why wizards are so i In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140550 > Pippin: > > Understand, I'm not a Harry-basher. But I don't think he's using his > best judgement. He's acting like every sixteen year old who thought he > knew more than his old man. Alla: I think that he is acting as any person who would just witnessed a killing in front of his eyes, but that is just me. Pippin: > Harry knows from first year that you can get a completely wrong idea > of a conversation by listening to just part of it, that Snape and > Dumbledore could not communicate openly in front of four Death > Eaters, that Snape and Dumbledore are both experts at legilimency, > that Dumbledore's actions have never made sense to him until they > were explained, and that Dumbledore was withholding the > explanations. > > He wiped blood away from the body, after being told that an avada > kedavra curse should leave no sign. Alla: Wait a second, Pippin. Are you saying that the most REASONABLE way to act for Harry would be stop and trying to figure out why Snape killed Dumbledore? I am not saying of course that there are no possible different interpretations of what happened on the Tower, but are you saying that they should have more sense to Harry that what he just saw? He has the most important piece of evidence - Dumbledore is dead, Snape threw Avada at him. I guess my question would be why this makes Harry an idiot? What is more reasonable than Seeing Dumbledore's body? Now, I am not saying that Snape may not turn out to be innocent of this killing ( personally I do not believe in it, but of course it is a possibility), I just don't get why exactly after seeing Snape committing killing and Dumbledore being dead, Harry should start wonder whether Snape is innocent. I mean, he would discover the truth, eventually of course, but I don't understand why this should be his first reaction and first priority? Why should he wonder about overheard conversations when he saw Snape threw Avada? Why should he think about the fact that Avada leaves no signs ( and I don't think that it had been proven 100%, personally, I think we witnessed Avada only couple of times and do not know for sure that it always does not leave a sign), when he sees Dumbledore dead? Pippin: > He hasn't stopped to wonder about any of these things. He's just > taken it for granted that Snape murdered Dumbledore, based > mostly on the way Snape has treated him, which is no more > sensible than judging Sirius by the way he treated Kreacher. Alla: Erm... I disagree. Harry took it for granted that Snape murdered Dumbledore, because he SAW Snape murdering Dumbledore. To me, it is just simple as that. Could it be that events on the Tower were mor complicated than what Harry saw? Sure, of course. I just think that his reaction is very reasonable one with the evidence he has. JMO, Alla. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 22:27:50 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:27:50 -0000 Subject: Snape's future (Was: Snape's other books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140551 Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote: But, Carol, why *would* Narcissa give it [the location of Spinner's End] away? Or do you mean she'd be forced to do so? > > I'm rather more fond of the idea that Snape & Draco will hide out somewhere else. Who was it who suggested under the boardwalk, as it were, at the Malfoys' manor? Something like that, or some special place Voldy has set aside for secret meetings or hideaways. Carol responds: That was me, upthread. I wrote: "Will he [Snape] stay at Spinner's End with Peter (surely a risky proposition), move in with Voldy, share a cozy hideaway with Bellatrix in that secret room under the drawing room in the Malfoy manor, fly to Egypt on Buckbeak? (Just joking on that last one.)" I do think that's where Bellatrix is hiding, BTW, which explains why she hasn't yet been caught and how she could know that Narcissa intended to go to Snape for help. As for Narcissa revealing the location of Spinner's End, I was thinking that the Aurors will almost certainly question her regarding Draco's whereabouts (So much for "glory"; he's a wanted criminal), and maybe Snape's as well. Unless she's a better Occlumens than she appears to be (and has an antidote to Veritaserum handy), she could easily reveal everything she knows, from the location of Spinner's End to the Unbreakable Vow (although that last might actually work to Snape's advantage). She's the main reason I think Snape should leave Spinner's End and should *not* go into hiding with Bellatrix and Draco at the manor. (That and his distaste for Mrs. Lestrange. Living in close quarters with her would be worse than sharing a small house with Wormtail.) I do think Snape will want to protect Draco in some way but that Draco (given his snide behavior to Snape in HBP) will claim that he's of age and doesn't need Snape's protection. Which is why I hope (being a DD'sMan partisan) that Snape is free of the UV. If anything really bad happens to Draco otherwise, Snape is dead. Carol, who expressed some additional thoughts on the UV in a different thread From knorte1 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 22:21:21 2005 From: knorte1 at yahoo.com (knorte1) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:21:21 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Death Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140552 I've just joined this group and still have many e-mails to go before catching up on all the theories and discussions spawned by HBP but I'm wondering why everyone seems so completely convinced that DD is really "dead." First of all, Snape would have had to truly want to kill DD for the AK to work. I'm not convinced that he did. I'm sure DD knows a great deal more about Snape than JKR has told us through her books and I have a hard time believing he could be so blind as to keep as a trusted ally, someone who would be able to perform a successful AK on him. Also, after using the AK, all we are told is that DD's body is raised upwards and then it falls behind the battlement. We don't see DD again until some time later. Why couldn't it have been possible for someone else to have helped DD, unseen by Harry and the DE, and given him a little of the "living death" potion so that everyone would believe he was dead. That would allow Harry to proceed on his hero's quest and allow DD to stay safely hidden in the background gathering more information and keeping an eye on things. His portrait didn't speak, it snored. That's certainly ambiguous. Snape didn't allow anyone to harm Harry, and even continued to instruct him to keep his mouth shut when casting spells so that they couldn't be deflected. Finally, Harry saw the Phoenix rise up from the funeral pyre. I see a strong parrallel here to Gandalf in Lord of the Rings. I think there's a very good chance that we'll see DD, or an altered version of him at least, in Book 7. By the way, I agree with anyone who found this to be the least exciting of JKR's series thus far. I was quite disappointed but I want to know how the story turns out so, of course, will be there with the crowds to purchase the last volume. Knorte1 From fuzzlebub85 at aol.com Tue Sep 20 22:43:04 2005 From: fuzzlebub85 at aol.com (fuzzlebub85 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:43:04 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's future (Was: Snape's other books) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140553 Kaylee here! (snip) Potioncat: > But even more interesting, Snape was said to belong to a gang that > included Bella, yet she's surprised that he lives here. Narcissa, on > the other hand, knows just where it is. She hurries there with no > apparant problem. Has she been here before? Hmm, was there a dish of > ACID POPS on the side table? Kaylee interrupts Potioncat: (Sorry, Shipmate! *salutes*) A dish of ACID POPS on the side table...hehe...I love that. I'm sure dear Cissy has been there quite a lot, since she knows the way. I wonder, actually, going off on a tangent, if maybe *she* was the girl who laughed as Snape tried riding the "bucking broomstick"? Sorry for being off-topic... > There doesn't appear to be any charms on the house that would make > it hard to find. So either Snape and Pettigrew had better pack up > quick, or Snape had better begin the incantations! (That would, of > course, make him "Prince, charming".) Kaylee again: *laughing hysterically at the "Prince, charming" comment* True, he'd better. I think Snape has enough sense to know that. Hopefully, he also has enough prowess in Charms to do it. After all, it is Snape who disdains the "silly incantations"... SSSusan: Do we know whether others know where Spinner's End is? Yes, Narcissa- sweetie knows (and, Neri, this might be good evidence for ACID POPS), but who else does? Does Snapey have frequent visitors? I cannot imagine it! Does the WW have the equivalent of the white pages or anywho.com to locate people? Well, yes, owls, but if the house has been made unplottable, for instance? Who would've been aware of the location? Who would Snape have allowed to know? Kaylee interrupts her Captain to add: Perhaps Madam "I'm A Prince" might know? *grins* Irma Pince, that is..."CHOCOLATE IN THE LIBRARY!!!!!! OUT!!!!!!" *laughs* SSSusan continued: Yes, you're right, Potioncat, that there don't *appear* to be any charms on the house, but maybe that's because we only see Narcissa arriving (and Bella coat-tailing). Maybe she's been there several times before? Perhaps she's an exception ? she has "pass-through privileges" or, as with 12 GP & the Order, there are a select few who've been let in on the location via Secret Keeping. Alright, that's weak. If it were unplottable, presumably Bella wouldn't even have been able to SEE it, even if Narcissa could. So, it probably is unlikely that Snape can return to Spinner's End... unless he went there immediately upon leaving Hogwarts, before the Aurors had a chance to go after him. Kaylee now: I wonder where he'll go if he can't go to Spinner's End? Malfoy Manor, perhaps? It *is* Draco's house as well as dear Cissy's, and Snape could take Lucius' place and they'd live happily ever after What do you think? Carol: > > But I've also been thinking of what Snape is going to do now. If > > the Aurors question Narcissa Malfoy (and I'll bet they will since > > Draco is an accessory to murder as well as being guilty of > > attempted murder and various other crimes), she could give away > > Snape's hiding place. Kaylee here: But would she, if she was living there too? Potioncat: > Unless of course, Spinner's End is charmed in some way and > Draco has to hide there too. SSSusan: I already shared my thoughts on that, above. But, Carol, why *would* Narcissa give it away? Or do you mean she'd be forced to do so? I'm rather more fond of the idea that Snape & Draco will hide out somewhere else. Who was it who suggested under the boardwalk, as it were, at the Malfoys' manor? Something like that, or some special place Voldy has set aside for secret meetings or hideaways. Kaylee: *blinks* Huh. What do you know, I didn't even read this far yet and already I agreed with you, Cap'n Susan. *amused* Potioncat: > Well, there are some nice caves not too far from Hogsmeade. He can > hang from the ceiling there..erm I mean...hang out there. Of course, > the first time he saw words carved in the cave wall "Padfoot was > here" he'd go ballistic. SSSusan: Snort! Wouldn't that be a hoot? I could see Snape hanging out in a (non-Siriusly-tainted) cave, but I couldn't see Draco hanging out there WITH him. Snape might have to ditch the kid somewhere safe and go solo. Since I believe in DDM!Snape, I also think he'll *want* to ditch the kid and go solo. Kaylee: No, no, no..."Moony was here!" Why stop at caves? How about the Shrieking Shack? *snigger* What do you think? Carol: > > What happens next? Is he still bound by the vow to protect Draco, > > even though Draco is now a "man," having turned seventeen on June > > 5? Kaylee: Draco, a man? Puh-lease. *snort* Potioncat: > I read the UV as being completed with the death of DD, but if not, > I'd think Draco's coming of age would finish it. Since coming of age > completes the blood protection with Harry's family. SSSusan: I'm in agreement that the death of DD ended Snape's UV obligation to Draco. I can't imagine that his coming of age would have anything to do with that, frankly. I mean, surely a UV could be established between parties of any ages, so why would Draco's coming of age end the vow? No, if it's complete, it's because Snape upheld his end of the bargain by killing DD. Kaylee: Agreed. I don't think Draco's coming of age had anything to do with it either. OTOH, I still can't quite imagine Snape abandoning Draco. He might not keep him with him long while he's on the run ? I could see him arranging for his safe deposit *somewhere* -- but I can't imagine his lugging Draco along with him. The only way I think Snape would stay with Draco long is if they both end up hiding at the Malfoys'. Kaylee: And again, I say we're thinking along the same lines. Malfoy Manor, in Wiltshire if I remember OOTP correctly. Hey, isn't that where Stonehenge is? Potioncat: > Snape could end up in Azkaban. If so, I'm sure we'll get the scene > where he's tossed into his cell and the first thing he sees is > writing on the wall "Padfoot was here". Kaylee: Oh no...*howls with laughter* You've got to be kidding, Shipmate. "Padfoot was here" too? LOL SSSusan: Hee. His tormentor forever, huh? ;-) Seriously, I don't think Snape will end up in Azkaban. Though if he did, we might get to see some highly entertaining interaction between Snape & Lucius! ["What were you doing with My Woman, Snape?" demanded Lucius. "No, no, Lucius, you've got it all wrong! I was simply doing all I could to assist your precious progeny," snivelled Snape. Heh.] Kaylee: *rolls on the floor laughing* This is too much. His tormentor forever, I guess, if you want to look at it that way *grin* I say if Snape invents a curse labeled "for enemies" and then gets his own curses used on him, he deserves it. Wait, that's another thread. *blush* Sorry. Potioncat: > My guess is that we won't see any of the Dumbledore Murder > Investigation either. Unless Arthur is either part of it or hears > about it and tells us, erm, I mean, tells Harry about it. Kaylee: LOL. Dumbledore Murder Investigation. Anything like CSI perhaps? SSSusan: I think this is highly likely, myself ? that Arthur will be in on or aware of the investigation... or that Harry will be in touch with Moody, Tonks or Shacklebolt, who'll be investigating. Kaylee: Siriusly, if Harry's not kept "in the know" during book 7, I will bang my head against the wall until it breaks open. Potioncat: > I really expect we'll either see almost nothing of Snape, or we'll > see an absolutely horrible Snape until the end. At the end we'll get > some big scene which will prove at last which side he has been on. Kaylee: We'd better. SSSusan: While I don't care if we're led to believe in an absolutely horrible Snape `til the end, I do hope you're wrong about seeing almost nothing of Snape 'til the end. I would like to see periodic Snape updates throughout book 7. Not that I have a CLUE what he'll be doing or how Harry will be responding to news of his whereabouts/alleged activities/offers of assistance or whatever the hell is going to be coming. But I'd like to *not* spend the whole book waiting & wondering or getting no Harry thoughts/responses. Kaylee: I just want to find out what side he's on. Oh, wait, I know! HIS! *grins* Snape is for Snape! Siriusly Snapey Susan, still chuckling over "Padfoot was here." Kaylee Tonks-Lupin, laughing about that too... ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page _Click Here!_ (http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/s4wxlB/TM) --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hannah at readysolve.com Tue Sep 20 22:51:08 2005 From: hannah at readysolve.com (khilari2000) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:51:08 -0000 Subject: R.A.B. & Missing Horcrux/DEs saying Voldemort In-Reply-To: <003201c59c54$dbc05c90$7ec2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140554 > CathyD now: > What I find more interesting are the times someone calls him *Voldemort* when I dont think they *should*. Fake!Moody/Crouch calls him Voldemort once as did Peter Pettigrew in POA. I found that very odd (Snape is soooo good about never saying Voldemort) and have wondered, for a long time obviously, if it is a printing error or something else. It was a printing error, I think. I heard that they went through and took out all the times a DE said "Voldemort" but missed the possessive "Voldemort's". I can't remember where I heard that so I don't know if it's true. Did you notice which the DEs said? From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 23:25:38 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 23:25:38 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140555 knorte wrote: > I've just joined this group and still have many e-mails to go before > catching up on all the theories and discussions spawned by HBP but > I'm wondering why everyone seems so completely convinced that DD is > really "dead." zgirnius: Hi! My biggest problem with this is that Snape is still alive. We know from Ron's conversation with Harry that failing to keep and Unbreakable Vow is lethal. If Dumbledore is alive, Snape has not killed him. Draco has tried and "seemed unable". knorte: > First of all, Snape would have had to truly want to > kill DD for the AK to work. I'm not convinced that he did. I'm > sure DD knows a great deal more about Snape than JKR has told us > through her books and I have a hard time believing he could be so > blind as to keep as a trusted ally, someone who would be able to > perform a successful AK on him. zgirnius: You are not alone...speculations include, that Snape's AK failed but the force of the spell threw Dumbledore off the tower to his death, or the idea that under cover of saying the words "Avada Kedavra", Snape performed a different spell which just caused DD to fall off the tower. knorte wrote: > I think > there's a very good chance that we'll see DD, or an altered version > of him at least, in Book 7. zgirnius: I think we'll have to settle for Pensieve memories and the portrait, myself. Though I suppose some sort of return form the dead would be a way around Snape still being alive. But I seem to recall JKR saying that death is final in the Potterverse. (Gandalf wasn't really a remarkable human or elf person who happened to be a wizard, he was a Maia, sort of a lesser deity or powerful spirit being, and having different rules for him made more sense in the context of that universe.) knorte: > By the way, I agree with anyone who > found this to be the least exciting of JKR's series thus far. I was > quite disappointed but I want to know how the story turns out so, of > course, will be there with the crowds to purchase the last volume. zgirnius: Too bad, I hope that Book 7 works out for you! Book 6 was my favorite and has me really waiting for Book 7... From bibphile at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 23:26:37 2005 From: bibphile at yahoo.com (bibphile) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 23:26:37 -0000 Subject: Narcissa and laundry (was:Re: A question about each HP book) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140556 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Heidi" wrote: > I tried to visilized > Narcissa doing laundry, but I can't see her scubbing the skid marks > out of Draco's underroo's if there was a house elf around to do it. > Maybe Narcissa has human servents as well as house elves. Hogwarts has Filtch and house elves. From ragingjess at hotmail.com Tue Sep 20 23:30:51 2005 From: ragingjess at hotmail.com (Jessica Bathurst) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:30:51 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lapdogs?? (wasRe: re:Ages/) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140557 Potioncat: >So, the relationship with the gang had to happen before Snape's last two >years; all of the ones we know the ages for would have finished earlier. Ack! Forgot the other part from GoF. And that's why I shouldn't post at work. So much for that idea. > Now, I suddenly read that passage differently. I always read it as "he >arrived knowing" and later "he was part of" But what if he arrived knowing >more curses and was already a part of a gang? Maybe someone here is a >Prince cousin? A an older cousin who refers to > ickle Sevvie as the "Half-blood Prince"? Interesting - that clears up the problem with the age differences between the older members and Snape. It also might explain why, five years into school, there are no Slytherins around "ickle Sevvie" when he's flying at full mast. Once the older (scarier?) relative departed, no one would be under any obligation to stand up for Snape. I think a relative would be a lot more tolerant of whining from a first-year than, say, Lucius Malfoy, which may be where the nickname "Snivellus" comes in. (Although "Half-Blood Prince" sounds so much like a bad IRC name that I just can't believe Snape didn't make it up himself.) >Potioncat, who really posted this time to correct the error in the subject >line. I thought "lagdogs" was a clever pun combining "lapdogs" and "fags" (the British schoolboy kind, not the gay kind). Seriously. Yours, Jessica From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 00:29:20 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:29:20 -0000 Subject: Snape's future (Was: Snape's other books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140558 Saraquel: Joining in the laughter too. Potioncat wrote: > I really expect we'll either see almost nothing of Snape, or we'll > see an absolutely horrible Snape until the end. At the end we'll get > some big scene which will prove at last which side he has been on. Saraquel: But methinks that "Snape woz ear" is scrawled either on the remains of Godric's Hollow or the walls of the Cave. I notice a certain lack of canon attaching itself to that sentence ? I wonder where it got to :-) But, speculating, Harry will need to seek to seek him out for one reason or the other to get some questions answered, and the questions he wants answered will have put some real confusion in his mind about just where Snape's loyalties lie. Yes, I know, there's no reason in the canon that we have to put Snape at either of those locations, but it's what happened at those locations that will give Harry definitive proof of exactly where Snape's loyalties lie, IMO. I've suggested theories that could put him at these locations in the past, but they met with the sort of reaction that either makes you wonder if you've gone deaf or leaves you looking at the backs of people's heads as they walk away :-) But I haven't abandoned them totally, I've just followed Luna's example, and threaded a string through the holes in them and am now wearing them round my neck. In fact, I think I might adopt LunaThories as my list name, I'm sure there are plenty of people on the list who would think it highly appropriate Also, if Snape really is DDM, then, as has been discussed on the list, we might expect to see him trying to contact Harry? Don't know if anyone has suggested this yet, but might Fawkes not be a trustworthy messenger from Snape to Harry? That would certainly confuse Harry and put Snape very firmly in the loyal to DD camp. >SSSusan wrote: >OTOH, I still can't quite imagine Snape abandoning Draco. He might >not keep him with him long while he's on the run "I could see him >arranging for his safe deposit *somewhere* -- but I can't imagine >his lugging Draco along with him. The only way I think Snape would >stay with Draco long is if they both end up hiding at the Malfoys'. >Kaylee: And again, I say we're thinking along the same lines. >Malfoy Manor, in Wiltshire if I remember OOTP correctly. Hey, isn't >that where Stonehenge is? Saraquel: I've been rereading `Flight of the Prince" and there is no evidence given about whether Snape actually disapparated with Draco or not. 3 DEs, Draco and Snape escaped the scene. The 3 DEs and Draco ran on whilst Snape turned to face Harry. This is how the encounter ends UK Ed p564 "and sure enough, by the time he (Harry) had located his wand he turned only to see the Hiffpogriff circling the gates: Snape had managed to Disapparate just beyond the school's boundaries." It could be that as soon as the 3 DEs and Draco got beyond the boundaries they disapparated without waiting for Snape ? so there is a possibility that Snape and Draco have already been separated. Whatever happened at that point, and even if Snape is ESE or has decided to still continue as a spy (both of which I doubt) I can't see them hiding at the Malfoy's. The boardwalk (does this mean under the floorboards?) was searched wasn't it, by Arthur Weasley? LunaTheories chips in at this point, well if Snape was involved with the Cave, how about that for a hiding place? Saraquel, rolls her eyes heavenwards and puts a fixed smile on her face. Saraquel From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 00:58:40 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:58:40 -0000 Subject: Snape's future (Was: Snape's other books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140559 > >>Carol: > > I do think Snape will want to protect Draco in some way but that > Draco (given his snide behavior to Snape in HBP) will claim that > he's of age and doesn't need Snape's protection. Which is why I > hope (being a DD'sMan partisan) that Snape is free of the UV. If > anything really bad happens to Draco otherwise, Snape is dead. Betsy Hp: Do you think Draco will *still* be snide towards Snape after everything that happened to him? Personally, I think Draco went through a life-altering type of event while on the tower. (Actually, I think Draco's entire sixth year shook the foundations of his world.) The fact that Snape was so protective of him on the tower, and that they'd had a good relationship to start with, suggests to me that Snape could possibly be the one person Draco feels he can rely on. Also, I have a sneaking suspicion that Snape will try and save Draco from making the same mistakes he made as a young man. So he might not *let* Draco push him away. (Of course, this is all conjecture on my part. ) Betsy Hp From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Sep 21 01:28:35 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 01:28:35 -0000 Subject: Snape's future (Was: Snape's other books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140560 > Betsy Hp: > Do you think Draco will *still* be snide towards Snape after > everything that happened to him? Personally, I think Draco went > through a life-altering type of event while on the tower. (Actually, > I think Draco's entire sixth year shook the foundations of his > world.) The fact that Snape was so protective of him on the tower, > and that they'd had a good relationship to start with, suggests to me > that Snape could possibly be the one person Draco feels he can rely > on. > > Also, I have a sneaking suspicion that Snape will try and save Draco > from making the same mistakes he made as a young man. So he might > not *let* Draco push him away. (Of course, this is all conjecture on > my part. ) Ceridwen: I also believe that Draco got quite a wake-up call during his sixth year. And, I do think he's going to mull over DD's talk, and begin considering trying to contact someone from the Order. Being a Slytherin, which means he would want to make the best impression for advancement with the OotP, he may try to at least morally distance himself from Snape. And, I think it's possible, though I have no canon to back it up, that Snape's AK might have daunted Draco, made him afraid of Snape. Draco's talked the big talk since his first year, but when it came to the crunch, he couldn't do it. He cried in the bathroom to a Muggle-born ghost. He was, apparently, losing sleep and having other problems because of his mission. He was threatened with not only losing his life, but his parents' lives as well. His introduction to the Wonderful World of LV was probably the worst thing to happen to him, ever. Then, the person who's been a family friend and mentor just walks up, takes a good look, and AKs the guy who's just offered Draco a sane way out. I think he may at the least be wary of Snape after that. If he could kill DD for LV, then what could he do to Draco if LV is disappointed in the boy? And, that last flight from the grounds, Snape was pretty well OTT. Yup, Draco's world has been turned upside- down, all right! And at the same time, given that I do think Snape is DDM!Snape, I agree that he'll want to put the screws to Draco to keep him out of LV's clutches. He'll have to tread softly at first - can Snape do that? I'd like to see another Harryless chapter featuring the two of them at the start of their joint exile, just to see how things are panning out. Would Draco think Snape was horrible for betraying LV? Or would he think Snape was trying to bait him so he can kill him? Or... or... Ceridwen, who is enjoying this. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 01:46:56 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 01:46:56 -0000 Subject: Truth vs. what meets Harry's eye (Was: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks Snap In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140561 Alla wrote: > > I think that he [Harry] is acting as any person who would just witnessed a killing in front of his eyes, but that is just me. He has the most important piece of evidence - Dumbledore is dead, Snape threw Avada at him. > Harry took it for granted that Snape murdered Dumbledore, because he SAW Snape murdering Dumbledore. > To me, it is just simple as that. Could it be that events on the Tower were mor complicated than what Harry saw? Carol responds: To answer your last question, yes, they could. Which is not to say that they are, only that we know how deceptive appearances can be in the Potter books. The Snape plot may appear to be resolved, but I'm betting that it isn't. Rather than arguing (again) that Snape's supposed Avada Kedavra curse really doesn't resemble the ones we've seen, including even the one that kills the spider in GoF, or bringing up other points already discussed like the Unbreakable Vow and the choices Snape faced on the tower, let me try another tactic. Let's look at what meets the eye of other characters besides Harry and how their perceptions compare with the facts. We know that things very often aren't what they seem in the HP books. Granted, Harry's suspicions of Sirius Black, for example, were not based on what he saw with his own eyes, but Black's arrest for the murder of Peter Pettigrew and twelve Muggles *was* based on what many Muggle witnesses saw with their own eyes. The witnesses, we now know, were wrong, but they believed what they saw, and their testimony put Black in prison for twelve years. Harry himself was suspected as the Heir of Slytherin based on what the members of the Duelling Club saw with their own eyes. Overhearing Ernie Macmillan's suspicion that Harry is targeting the Muggle-born Justin Finch-Fletchley, Harry confronts Ernie: "Hello," said Harry. "I'm looking for Justin Finch-Fletchley." The Hufflepuffs' worst fears had clearly been confirmed. They all looked fearfully at Ernie. "What do you want with him?" said Ernie in a quavering voice. "I wanted to tell him what really happened with that snake at the Duelling Club," said Harry. Ernie bit his white lips and then, taking a deep breath, said, "We were all there. We saw what happened." "Then you noticed that after I spoke to it, the snake backed off?" said Harry. "All I saw," said Ernie stubbornly, though he was trembling as he spoke, "was you speaking Parseltongue and chasing the snake toward Justin." (CoS Am. ed. 200) Ernie and the other Hufflepuffs *saw with their own eyes* that Harry was telling the snake to attack Justin. Therefore, by your reasoning, they must be right. And yet we know they're not. For one thing, Ernie's view of events is colored by his preconception that Parseltongue is "the mark of a Dark wizard" (CoS 199). The reader, being a Muggle, has no such preconception. Also, unlike the Hufflepuffs, the reader is inside Harry's mind. We don't see him from the outside egging on the snake; we hear his thoughts and know that he's really telling the snake not to attack. The Hufflepuffs, seeing Harry from the outside, perceive the scene differently. What they see with their own eyes is the truth from their perspective, just as the Muggles who testified against Sirius Black were telling the truth from their perspective. But in both cases, it's what they don't see (or hear or understand) that's important. The Hufflepuffs hear a hissing noise, not the words Harry is speaking; the Muggles don't see Peter Pettigrew blowing off his finger--and the street--behind his back. Both judge by appearances but believe they know the truth. Harry, too, judges from what he sees on the tower and believes that he knows the truth--which happens to fit nicely with his preconception that Snape is evil. But what Harry sees throughout the books, even Dumbledore struck by a spell that knocks him from the tower and is followed by his death, is subject to interpretation, both Harry's and the reader's. And certainly both Harry and those readers who regard his POV as accurate are likely to see this scene in the worst light. But Harry has often been wrong before, and neither what he see nor what he feels is an infallible guide to truth in the sense of what really happened. (If we regard books 6 and 7 as two halves of the same book, as JKR has said somewhere, we are really only halfway through the book. At this point in PoA, we, like Harry, thought Sirius Black was out to kill him. Can we confidently conclude that we really know what happened on the tower? I don't think so.) Certainly Dumbledore is dead. Certainly Snape spoke the words "Avada Kedavra" and cast the spell that sent Dumbledore over the wall of the tower. But we know, and Harry knows, that's not the whole story. There is at least the role of the Unbreakable Vow to be considered--and Harry has conveniently forgotten that, as he's forgotten to consider Dumbledore's condition and his own role in force-feeding him the potion on DD's own orders. To what degree these complicating circumstances excuse Snape, if at all, I can't say. I'm only saying that Harry is not seeing the whole picture. He is not even seeing all the physical details presented by the narrator, or at least he is not perceiving their significance. (Again, there's the question of Snape's spell in contrast with a normal AK and the peaceful expression on Dumbledore's face in contrast with, say, Cedric Diggory's. Maybe I'm reading significance into these details that isn't there, but I'm far from the only reader who's seen them.) And of course there is the built-in limitation of any observer in life or in literature--seeing others from the outside. Just as the Hufflepuffs could not see inside Harry's head and so did not know what he was really saying to the snake and the Muggles didn't know Pettigrew's plot to fake his own death and frame Black for his murder, neither Harry nor the reader knows Snape's thoughts as he meets Dumbledore's eyes, raises his wand, and casts the spell that shook the Potterverse to its foundations. We don't know his motivation, his thoughts, or his feelings; we don't know what passed between him and Dumbledore; we don't know whether that spell was really an AK. We do know, if we look carefully at that scene and the following pages, that Harry has overlooked some details that may or may not be important (the absence of a blinding light and a rushing sound; Snape's actions in getting Draco and the DEs out of Hogwarts; the peaceful expression on the dead Dumbledore's face, etc.). Harry's interpretation of Snape's look of hatred and revulsion, reflected in the narrator's words, may or may not be the right one. Only Snape (and JKR) knows what Snape was really thinking and feeling. We do know, though that Harry is wrong in believing that Snape is Crucioing him. "Snape was going to torture him to death or madness" (HBP Am. ed. 603), a glaring example of unreliable narration reflecting Harry's inaccurate POV, suggests that Harry's perception of reality in the rest of that chapter and the previous one may not be entirely accurate, either. Ernie Macmillan and his fellow Hufflepuffs judged Harry to be guilty of petrifying his fellow students based on what they saw with their own eyes in the duelling club. But Ernie and his friends were wrong. It's possible, and in my opinion probable, that Harry is wrong, too--not in thinking that Snape killed Dumbledore (which appears to be indisputable) but in thinking that he knows the whole story and in believing that Snape is a murdering traitor. The evidence has not been examined, and there's a lot more to it than what meets Harry's eyes. Carol, who does not think for a moment that Harry is an idiot, only that what he sees with his own eyes (or hears with his own ears) isn't the whole truth From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 02:16:10 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 02:16:10 -0000 Subject: Truth vs. what meets Harry's eye (Was: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks Snap In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140562 > Alla wrote: > > To me, it is just simple as that. Could it be that events on the > Tower were more complicated than what Harry saw? > > Carol responds: > To answer your last question, yes, they could. Which is not to say > that they are, only that we know how deceptive appearances can be in > the Potter books. The Snape plot may appear to be resolved, but I'm > betting that it isn't. Alla: Carol, I am snipping the major part of your post, because I did not really argue that events on the Tower could not be more complicated than they looked. In fact, I answered my question: "Sure, of course. I just think that his reaction is very reasonable one with the evidence he has." My main point was that with the evidence Harry saw he did use his best judgment, that is all. In fact, I would find it incredibly wierd if the first thing after seeing Snape killing Dumbledore Harry would start wondering whether Snape is innocent. Now, it may happen that some additional circumstances could be brought to Harry's attention LATER ON and then he would start wandering what happened, but I was just expressing my disagreement with Pippin's argument that Harry is not using his best judgment when he believes that Snape killed Dumbledore after.... seeing that Snape killed Dumbledore. Carol: But what Harry sees throughout the books, even > Dumbledore struck by a spell that knocks him from the tower and is > followed by his death, is subject to interpretation, both Harry's and > the reader's. Alla: Absolutely, I am just saying that at the moment with the evidence he had, Harry had the most REASONABLE interpretation under the circumstances. Carol: And certainly both Harry and those readers who regard > his POV as accurate are likely to see this scene in the worst light. Alla: You bet. :-) But as I said earlier this is not my main point. Carol; > But Harry has often been wrong before, and neither what he see nor > what he feels is an infallible guide to truth in the sense of what > really happened. Alla: I think that Harry is actually been right too through book 6, so even if he is not infallible guide to truth, I am going to hope that he is right this time. :) Carol: Can we confidently conclude that we really know > what happened on the tower? I don't think so.) > > Certainly Dumbledore is dead. Certainly Snape spoke the words "Avada > Kedavra" and cast the spell that sent Dumbledore over the wall of the > tower. But we know, and Harry knows, that's not the whole story. Alla: Yes again. All that I am saying that with Dumbledore is dead and Snape saying "Avada" Harry judged what happened well, even if it is not the whole story. When Harry has more evidence, IF he will have more evidence, then he will probably change his judgment. I keep thinking about SSSusan post about "straightforward reading". Maybe she will painfully smack me across the head after reading it :- ), I don't know, maybe those are semantics, but I think that Snape guilt IS the most straightforward reading. I am not saying that this is the " CORRECT" reading or "the BEST" reading of JKR books , mind you, but I am saying that conclusion that Snape is guilty jumps out at me without thinking about clues. Which could be clues, but also could be red herrings, no? That is why I am arguing against calling Harry an idiot for thinking that Snape is guilty. Because I don't like calling myself an "idiot" :-) > Carol, who does not think for a moment that Harry is an idiot, only > that what he sees with his own eyes (or hears with his own ears) isn't > the whole truth. Alla: Absolutely, it IS a possibility. JMO, Alla, who realises that this is her post number four and shuts up for next hour before new day starts. :-) From juli17 at aol.com Wed Sep 21 02:42:02 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:42:02 EDT Subject: Snape's future (Was: Snape's other books) Message-ID: <193.488db088.3062227a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140563 Potioncat: I really expect we'll either see almost nothing of Snape, or we'll see an absolutely horrible Snape until the end. At the end we'll get some big scene which will prove at last which side he has been on. Potioncat, who will add that the resolution will be clear that he is DDM!Snape or else the ending will prove to some of us that he maintained his cover to the very end. Julie says: I think we may see more of Snape than just a brief appearance at the end. I wouldn't be surprised though if his appearances and/or his actions are disguised in some manner. E.g., Harry might receive various messages or even items of assistance (via Fawkes perhaps?) that help him in his quest to find the horcruxes, but only finds out at the end *who* has been helping him from the shadows. That last scene will be the one where Snape sacrifices himself (at Voldemort's hand I suspect) so Harry can fulfill the prophecy and defeat Voldemort finally and forever. Well, I hope it happens something like that, anyway ;-) Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Sep 21 02:49:17 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 02:49:17 -0000 Subject: Harry, Snape and James (was:Re: Sadistic!Snape?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140564 > Betsy Hp: > > If his motivation > was merely to cause Harry pain by attacking his father, why would > Snape wait until right then to do so? What was Snape's motivation > in bringing up and insulting James at that specific time? > > From Snape's POV, Lupin would certainly try and lure Harry out of > the castle into Sirius's easy reach. And what better way to do so > than to fill Harry's head with stories of his father's glory days? > Harry (no stranger to risk taking) would love to emulate his father > and sneak into Hogsmeade. (Again, this is Snape's POV I'm talking > about.) Valky: That's really quite a brilliant deduction, Betsy IMO. And plausible I might add, in the sense that JKR as the author could actually have thought this scene through in the way that you've established, it's not, out of hand, unlikely, first off, which is a great plus for a speculation of this nature. We know that the plot of POA hinged on those very implications regarding the Marauders and Snape, as well as a larger subplot of the series regarding James, Lily and Snape which is still fairly well disguised. It does stand to reason that parts of these can be found deliberately interwoven in this landmark scene. There is also the argument for Legilimency being deliberately concealed in past books, but it's been done so I'll rest on that. :D It's almost not a mere "I agree", yes? Betsy: > (And I do think Snape hopes for something to shake loose rather > than he go diving into Harry's head. Something Snape could do, > certainly, but something I'm betting is frowned upon.) Valky: You know, I have been thinking along these lines myself. I think there's truth to Sirius' taunts of Snapes big nose in other peoples business revealed (well sort of) as of HBP. You might be right, Betsy, that this is frowned upon. :D I think that Snape learned, as well as Dumbledore, as a result of the Occlumency Lessons, that Harry is quite an open book. During HBP Snape I noticed, seems to relish quiet moments that he can spend listening to Harry's 'loud' head venting away to itself. It's quite a bit nosey of him, I think. But also an interesting canon point, IMO, because he seems to be very interested in listening for thoughts of Sirius to shake loose, rather than thoughts of James. But I digress from your topic Betsy, so I'll leave it there. > > >>Alla: > > So far I remain convinced that the main reason Snape keeps > > bringing up James is to cause Harry pain and that again makes me > > doubt Snape remorse, but we shall see of course. Valky: After reading the answers Betsy has given here, I can't help thinking that a lot of this line of thought comes more strictly from Dumbledore and others around Snape than from Snape himself. It is Dumbledore who first tells us that Snape and James disliked each other, and we based a fair bit of our reading of Snape on that, in between times when we weren't given further information. This gives us the sense that Snapes awful behaviour is solidly based on the single factor of the poor relationship between James and Severus. It's true, essentially, that a lot of Snape's dislike for James is visited on Harry, but we are also directed by the narrative to overload this side of the equation while we are reading, until we are loathe to remove it because it forms the basis of a strong, acute, assumption. After looking at it with those eyes I realise it's possible that the narrative is tapping into human nature in the reader, getting *us* to clump our ideas subjectively, helping the true Snape to hide himself. While I, just now, seemed to be shifting the pile onto the good guys there, I actually wasn't. I don't think that Dumbledores view of Snape was skewed dramatically in the direction of reading James into every action. That was me, reading Dumbledores words into every action. Do I make sense? After saying all that, I have to agree how dissappointing it would be for an Singular-alignment!Snape to come of it all. I think such a clever narrative on Snape that underlines the readers own morality, would be wasted if Snape was ever explained out completely. He needs to remain ambiguous til the end, a mysterious character that is only as good or as evil as you make him. :P Valky From torinarg at hotmail.co.uk Tue Sep 20 07:17:07 2005 From: torinarg at hotmail.co.uk (Mark) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:17:07 -0000 Subject: Lily so wonderfull? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140565 Hi, I am new to this group and have been reading lots of the posts. Until now I have considered myself an intelligent and well knowledged Harry Potter fan but on seeing some of the views and depths on the series posted here I am forced to re-consider. :) 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? "torinarg" From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Sep 21 03:02:44 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 03:02:44 -0000 Subject: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks Snape is guilty? Was: Why wizards are so i In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140566 Alla: > I am not saying of course that there are no possible different > interpretations of what happened on the Tower, but are you saying > that they should have more sense to Harry that what he just saw? > > He has the most important piece of evidence - Dumbledore is dead, > Snape threw Avada at him. > > I guess my question would be why this makes Harry an idiot? > > What is more reasonable than Seeing Dumbledore's body? Pippin: How do you think Harry is going to feel if he manages to get Snape killed or punished, (or thinks he has) and then finds out that events on the tower were not what they seemed to be. Do you think he's *not* going to ask himself why he didn't notice the conflicting evidence before? Do you think he'd be proud of himself if he realized he had let his hatred run away with him? If he's going to be an Auror, I certainly hope he is not going to make a habit of disregarding evidence just because it doesn't fit with his theory of the crime! Pippin From sherriola at earthlink.net Wed Sep 21 03:14:03 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:14:03 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks Snape is guilty? Was: Why wizards are so i In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <004d01c5be5a$862d3190$ea21f204@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 140567 Pippin: How do you think Harry is going to feel if he manages to get Snape killed or punished, (or thinks he has) and then finds out that events on the tower were not what they seemed to be. Do you think he's *not* going to ask himself why he didn't notice the conflicting evidence before? Do you think he'd be proud of himself if he realized he had let his hatred run away with him? If he's going to be an Auror, I certainly hope he is not going to make a habit of disregarding evidence just because it doesn't fit with his theory of the crime! Pippin Sherry now: Every time I vow to stay out of the never ending Snape debate, something gets me back in the thick of it again. I do not agree at all that Harry didn't notice conflicting evidence. Harry saw what he saw. Anyone who'd been there, in the absolute fear and worry and danger would have believed what Harry believed. I believe it, and I'm not an idiot. Harry has only ever seen one AK, that we know of, on a spider. I don't consider that much evidence to support the idea that the curse didn't look like an AK. If, JKR forbid, it turns out that Snape isn't a bad guy, then the one way I hope Harry has matured is to learn not to blame himself for every single thing wrong in his world and to be able to accept that he made the best judgment of the circumstances he could, considering what he saw. He *saw* it happen. What on earth is he supposed to think? But oh, for the sake of proving Harry right, if nothing else, I am hoping that Snape is as evil as Saruman in the LOTR series! I'll dance for joy if he is. Sherry From Nanagose at aol.com Wed Sep 21 03:25:04 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 03:25:04 -0000 Subject: Truth vs. what meets Harry's eye (Was: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140568 Christina: First of all, AWESOME post, Carol. I'm snipping most of it because I agree. Carol: >Let's look at what meets the eye of other characters besides Harry >and how their perceptions compare with the facts. Christina: *rubs hands together* I love this game. A lot of people have said that HBP was something of a turning point for Harry, where he starts to actually be right in his hunches. Now, I haven't thoroughly re-read HBP cover-to-cover yet, but just flipping through it (for about the thousandth time), I came across my favorite Harry misperception: (HBP, Am. Ed., page 340) "But Tonks has her own family to go to, hasn't she?" "Hmmm," said Mrs. Weasley. "Maybe. I got the impression she was planning to spend Christmas alone, actually." She gave Lupin an annoyed look, as though it was all his fault she was getting Fleur for a daughter-in-law instead of Tonks, but Harry, glancing across at Fleur, who was now feeding Bill bits of turkey off her own fork, thought that Mrs. Weasley was fighting a long-lost battle. (end quote) Harry then starts to ask Lupin about Tonks's patronus changing, still believing that it was because of Sirius. There are several instances in HBP where Harry witnesses situations and incorrectly interprets them. He believes that Slughorn is teaching DADA. When Ginny and Hermione start talking trash about Fleur, Harry starts off by thinking that they are speaking of Mrs. Weasley (a misperception corrected very quickly, but still). He thinks Tonks had the hots for Sirius (honestly, Harry- they're cousins!), based on things that he witnessed. Alla: >In fact, I would find it incredibly wierd if the first thing after >seeing Snape killing Dumbledore Harry would start wondering whether >Snape is innocent. > >Now, it may happen that some additional circumstances could be >brought to Harry's attention LATER ON and then he would start >wandering what happened Christina: Oh, I'll be *shocked* if Harry ever wonders about Snape's possible innocence on his own. Once Harry has a perception of a person or situation in his head, he sticks to it. He never questions what he "knows" on his own- that just isn't Harry's style. No, like many others here, I firmly believe that it will be somebody else that questions Harry's report of the events surrounding Dumbledore's death (whether they turn out to be correct or not). I've always thought that Dumbledore, Hermione, and Lupin formed our team of analytical, cautious, and "objective" characters (in Lupin's case, it's a practically laughable objectivity..."I neither like nor dislike Severus Snape"? Please). Since Dumbledore is now dead, I'd bet that it'll be Lupin or Hermione that will prod more deeply into the situation. Hermione, most likely, considering the fact that Dumbledore instructed Harry to share everything with Hermione and Ron. Also, Lupin seemed pretty closed to new ideas about Snape at the end of HBP. Even after all that had transpired, Hermione *still* points out, " 'Evil' is a strong word." >Alla: >I think that Harry is actually been right too through book 6, so >even if he is not infallible guide to truth, I am going to hope >that he is right this time. :) Christina: As I said before, there are many times in HBP where Harry misjudges situations and people. I think it's especially important to note that the things Harry *is* right (or appears to be right) about in this book concern opinions he's had all along- Snape is dangerous, Malfoy is dangerous. This is half the reason he's not taken seriously. Ron and Hermione don't understand Harry's obsession with Malfoy because Harry is the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Lupin and Hermione (I excuse Dumbledore here because I think he *did* have an iron-clad reason for trusting Snape, whether Snape ends up as DDMan! or ESE!) repeat their standard lines about Snape when Harry expresses concern because he's been expressing concern for years. Harry didn't wisen up or become more perceptive in HBP- this just happened to be the year where Snape and Malfoy finally *emerged* as dangerous. If you think Harry was right to mistrust Snape, then he has been in tune with Snape's potential for evil from the start (and has been right in this particular area all along). If you think Harry was wrong, well then...this is just another example of Harry being incorrect. Either way, I can't see any evidence that Harry was more right in HBP than he's ever been before. It is *still* Hermione that makes the interesting leaps. She is freakishly accurate in her Eileen Prince guess. Christina From bob.oliver at cox.net Wed Sep 21 03:23:13 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 03:23:13 -0000 Subject: Harry, Snape and James (was:Re: Sadistic!Snape?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140569 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > > After saying all that, I have to agree how dissappointing it would be > for an Singular-alignment!Snape to come of it all. I think such a > clever narrative on Snape that underlines the readers own morality, > would be wasted if Snape was ever explained out completely. He needs > to remain ambiguous til the end, a mysterious character that is only > as good or as evil as you make him. :P > > I understand exactly what you are saying. However, I really doubt that Snape will be left all that mysterious at the end. He may very well end up not clearly on one side or the other, and I think that would be the best ending from a logical and literary point of view. But I doubt he will be very mysterious in the sense of our not understanding his past, reasoning, and motivations. JKR seems to me to want to make the moral part of her story very, very clear. Whatever that moral is, Snape is almost undoubtedly very important for it. I just don't sense that she's the kind of author who would leave something that crucial without explanation. Now, whether we think she has come up with a GOOD explanation is something else. I do agree that Snape is the kind of character that almost begs to be left mysterious, because it is so very hard to come up with a clear explanation for his thoughts and motivations (whether he is Dumbedore's man, DE, or OFH) that doesn't seem forced and simplistic. However, as I say, I sense that JKR wants her moral message to be unambiguous, and I just don't think she would be willing to compromise the clarity of her message by leaving Snape very mysterious. And that may end up being a very, very big problem. However the Snape arc comes out - Dumbledore's man, DE, or OFH - when Snape's history and motivations are revealed I suspect that the cry of "Oh come on now, you can't really mean that's IT?" is going to echo through the land with deafening force. Lupinlore From bob.oliver at cox.net Wed Sep 21 03:00:22 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 03:00:22 -0000 Subject: Conflict, imposition, and morality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140570 > > Del replies: > You're making a slight mistake, though: > respect of the privacy and the person of > superiors are not components of only one > moral code. They are integral parts of many > other moral codes that *do not* include > reciprocity to inferiors. In fact, they are > even part of LV's "moral code": he, as the > Lord, has the right to humiliate his > subordinates, torture them, invade their > privacy, and so on, but they don't have the > right to reciprocate, and they must always > show him respect. This is exactly how Snape > is acting towards LV: he always calls him > "the Dark Lord", for example, not > "You-Know-Who". He also tended to do that > with DD, shutting up when DD told him to, for > example, and always calling him in respectful > terms. So the facts that Snape reserves the > right to invade his students' privacy and to > disrespect them while at the same time > demanding that they respect his own privacy > and person are not at all incompatible. They > just show that Snape doesn't go with the > reciprocating-to-inferiors moral code, and > there's nothing inherently wrong with that. > Of course there's something inherently wrong with that. Moral wrong is by definition "inherently" wrong -- there is no other thing it can be. Nor are all moral codes created equal -- in the Potterverse or any other. It is the nature of being human to impose your moral code on others, whether that is what you think you are doing or not. By definition, Snape thinks he is right and everyone else is wrong. By definition, I think I'm right and everyone else is wrong. But that does not mean that there is nothing inherently wrong with Snape's position. From my position (and there is ONLY a personal position, there is no objective position on morality, including morality of relativism and/or tolerance) any position that does not agree with what I believe to be right is inherently wrong. And everyone else in the world approaches morality in exactly the same way, whether they are willing to admit it or not. Therefore the question of who is morally right with regard to Harry and Snape comes down to who most fits with your own code. The one who does is inherently right. The one who does not is inherently wrong. That's just the way the world works, there is absolutely no other way it can be. If JKR crafts an ending that upholds my moral code she is inherently in the right, if she does not she is inherently in the wrong. That is the very nature of morality, it can be absolutely no other way. Now, in the Potterverse this guarantees moral turmoil and conflict. In the real world this guarantees moral turmoil and conflict. This is the nature of life. The only way it will ever come to an end is for every single person who has ever lived to come to an end, or for God himself to make a ruling, or both. Until then, the only thing anyone can do is sharpen their moral knives and wade into combat determined to defend and expand the empire of the right. Lupinlore From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Wed Sep 21 03:53:32 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 03:53:32 -0000 Subject: Snape's future (Was: Snape's other books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140571 > > Whatever happened at that point, and even if Snape is ESE or has > decided to still continue as a spy (both of which I doubt) I can't > see them hiding at the Malfoy's. The boardwalk (does this mean > under the floorboards?) was searched wasn't it, by Arthur Weasley? > LunaTheories chips in at this point, well if Snape was involved with > the Cave, how about that for a hiding place? Saraquel, rolls her > eyes heavenwards and puts a fixed smile on her face. > > Saraquel > This is a long shot, but what about 12 Grimauld Place for a hideout? It is the family home of the Blacks, and would leave Snape in touch with the Voldemort camp, perhaps via Kreacher, and give him reason to come in contact with Bellatrix and Narcissa should he want to. But it would also provide a link to Harry, who owns the place, and Buckbeak, who could become the contact there. And we know that 12GP is hideout- able, because Sirius hid there successfully. --Gatta From chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 04:13:32 2005 From: chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com (alora67) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 04:13:32 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140572 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "knorte1" wrote: > I've just joined this group and still have many e-mails to go before > catching up on all the theories and discussions spawned by HBP but > I'm wondering why everyone seems so completely convinced that DD is > really "dead." *de-lurking* I've been dealing with this one myself. DD death hit me hard, I wasn't prepared for it, so I don't want to believe it. First of all, Snape would have had to truly want to > kill DD for the AK to work. I'm not convinced that he did. I'm > sure DD knows a great deal more about Snape than JKR has told us > through her books and I have a hard time believing he could be so > blind as to keep as a trusted ally, someone who would be able to > perform a successful AK on him. Also, after using the AK, all we > are told is that DD's body is raised upwards and then it falls > behind the battlement. We don't see DD again until some time > later. Why couldn't it have been possible for someone else to have > helped DD, unseen by Harry and the DE, and given him a little of > the "living death" potion so that everyone would believe he was > dead. OKay, I've thought about this one, too. What about all the potion/liquid he drank to get that locket at the bottom of the bowl? What WAS that? Did it hurt him? Protect him? Was it the "draught of living death"? I wonder.... >I think > there's a very good chance that we'll see DD, or an altered version > of him at least, in Book 7. I know DD's probably dead, but I'm going to keep the hope alive that something was in that potion in the cave. Alora ;) From djklaugh at comcast.net Wed Sep 21 04:13:43 2005 From: djklaugh at comcast.net (Deb) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 04:13:43 -0000 Subject: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks Snape is guilty? Was: Why wizards are so i In-Reply-To: <004d01c5be5a$862d3190$ea21f204@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140573 (snip) > Sherry now: > > Every time I vow to stay out of the never ending Snape debate, something > gets me back in the thick of it again. I do not agree at all that Harry > didn't notice conflicting evidence. Harry saw what he saw. Anyone who'd > been there, in the absolute fear and worry and danger would have believed > what Harry believed. I believe it, and I'm not an idiot. Harry has only > ever seen one AK, that we know of, on a spider. Deb here: He also was present for the AK -- witnessed it up close and personal -- that killed Cedric Diggory. Harry knows what a *real* AK looks like, sounds like, and what effect it has on the victim. GOF page 638 (Amer h.b. edition) "From far away, above his head, he (Harry) 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 eyelids, and he heard something heavy fall to the round 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. Cedric was lying spread-eagled on the ground beside him. He was dead. For a second that contained an eternity, Harry stared into Cedric's face, at his open gray eyes, blank and expressionless as the windiows of a deserted house, at his half-open mouth, which looked slightly surprised."...... from GOF page 217 (Amer. h.b edition) -spider AK " "Avada Kadavra!" Moody roared. Thee 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 onto its back , unmarked, but unmistakably dead". >Sherry I don't consider that much > evidence to support the idea that the curse didn't look like an AK. Deb again: HBP page 596 (Amer. h.b. edition) "Snape raised his wand and pointed it directly at Dumbledore. "Avada Kadavra" A jet of green light shot from the end of Snape's wand and hit Dumbledore squarely in the chest. Harry's scream of horror never left him; silent and unmoving, he was forced to watch as **Dumbledore was blasted into the air**. For a split second he seemed to hang suspended beneath the shining skull and then he fell slowly backward, like a great rag doll, over the battlements and out of sight". (added emphasis my own). Whether Snape is good, bad, or indifferent is not the issue at the moment. Whatever curse, hex, jinx or spell he threw at DD up there on the tower(with no canon as to what level of verbal intensity he was using -Moody and Wormtail were very loud and forceful when they said "AK" - in HBP it could be read like Snape said it casually), it did NOT act like an AK. While it had the external appearance of one (the green light- but in HBP described as a "jet" and not as a "blinding flash"), it caused DD to be "blasted into the air". Where as in the other incidences we the readers know of.. and the ones that Harry has direct knowledge of .... the effect of the AK was to cause "instantaneous" death. And the victim, be it spider or Hogwart's student or anyone else, drops in his, her, it's tracks! They do NOT go blasting into the air. If, JKR > forbid, it turns out that Snape isn't a bad guy, then the one way I hope > Harry has matured is to learn not to blame himself for every single thing > wrong in his world and to be able to accept that he made the best judgment > of the circumstances he could, considering what he saw. He *saw* it happen. > What on earth is he supposed to think? But oh, for the sake of proving > Harry right, if nothing else, I am hoping that Snape is as evil as Saruman > in the LOTR series! I'll dance for joy if he is. > > Sherry Perhaps what Harry is supposed to do is to THINK! And not just react. He is now almost 17 years old and in the eyes of the WW he is an adult. He has had 6 years worth of excellent education at HW, he has experienced many instances where appearances are deceptive, and he is capable of logical and complex reasoning. He also knows that reacting and overreacting from pure emotions can lead to dire consequences. He has been told over and over by Snape, by DD, by others as well to curb his emotions. If Snape did not use an AK on Dumbledore, what did he use? And if not the AK, then what effect was he going for? And why? And as others have said on other threads, why not finish Harry off during his escape? Now that LV is back in a body is it really so important to him to be the one to kill Harry personally? Or did Snape just say that to get the others away before they could harm anyone else? No Harry is not an idiot, far from it, but once the stress of DD's death have eased, he will, IMO, need to do a lot of thinking and delving into what is true behind the facade of his own experience. Deb From lebeto033 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 04:14:17 2005 From: lebeto033 at yahoo.com (lebeto033) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 04:14:17 -0000 Subject: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks Snape is guilty? Was: Why wizards are In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140574 > Pippin: > How do you think Harry is going to feel if he manages to get > Snape killed or punished, (or thinks he has) and then finds > out that events on the tower were not what they seemed to be. > Do you think he's *not* going to ask himself why he didn't > notice the conflicting evidence before? Do you think he'd be > proud of himself if he realized he had let his hatred run away > with him? > > If he's going to be an Auror, I certainly hope he is not going > to make a habit of disregarding evidence just because it doesn't > fit with his theory of the crime! lebeto: I just can't see any evidence that points towards anything other than Snape killing Dumbledore. Sure, evidence can be brought into light at some later point but a telepathic conversation is possible but it's only conjecture. The only concrete evidence is the fact that Dumbledore pleaded with Snape...either to not kill him or to perhaps kill him and continue their brilliant triple-agent ploy... Snape used the AK on Dumbledore. That's it, and if Harry had to wipe blood off a body I'm gonna assume that a fall from the Astronomy Tower is not gonna be clean. Yes, it might turn out that Snape didn't kill him but all the concrete evidence points to Snape killing Dumbledore. Frankly, I would be more worried about an Auror who watches an AK happen and concocts a story about a silent conversation and a conspiracy rather than a straightforward murder. Until new evidence is brought forth, Harry is absolutely correct in assuming that Snape killed Dumbledore. lebeto From msbeadsley at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 04:46:43 2005 From: msbeadsley at yahoo.com (msbeadsley) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 04:46:43 -0000 Subject: Conflict, imposition, and morality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140575 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > Sandy aka msbeadsley wrote: > "An obligation only exists if the person in > question adopts the majority's morality, even > if they only do so in the sense of trying to > use them to modify *others'* behavior. Once > they buy in, they're stuck. IMO." > Del replies: > Not sure what you mean here, sorry. I was trying to say that the only reason to obey the rules is fear of consequences: UNLESS you invest in the rules for reasons of your own. Once you support a moral code, as in make it clear that you have expectations that *others* will follow it, you've struck a bargain with society, IMO, that you will adhere to that same code. > Sandy aka msbeadsley wrote: > "Snape is furious, AFAWK, when Harry invades > his privacy (memories in the Pensieve). > Privacy is part of a moral/social code outside > of law. Snape insists on other respectful > forms as well; IMO, once he demands that > others adhere to a code of moral/social > conduct, he obligates himself as well. It is > one thing to refuse to adhere to a code if > the reason is that you do not recognize it as > correct or relevant or useful; once you do, > if you ignore it at only at your own > convenience, then, IMO, you are morally in > error. Inherently. Regardless of the code in > question." > > Del replies: > You're making a slight mistake, though: > respect of the privacy and the person of > superiors are not components of only one > moral code. They are integral parts of many > other moral codes that *do not* include > reciprocity to inferiors. I thought of that, actually. But if I go into the reasons I think Snape forfeited his right to that sort of respect, we'll be back on the Snape-go-round again, and I'll pass. > In fact, they are > even part of LV's "moral code": he, as the > Lord, has the right to humiliate his > subordinates, torture them, invade their > privacy, and so on, but they don't have the > right to reciprocate, and they must always > show him respect. I don't think of this as having to do with rights; it is merely a matter of brute power, IMO. (And this is how Snape wields his as well, come to think of it, as regards the students, which has me thinking yet again that a fair (oxymoron alert) amount of what he does in class is for show. His inclination to enjoy it is something else, however...and here I am hopping back off the Snape-go-round, really and truly) > This is exactly how Snape > is acting towards LV: he always calls him > "the Dark Lord", for example, not > "You-Know-Who". He also tended to do that > with DD, shutting up when DD told him to, for > example, and always calling him in respectful > terms. So the facts that Snape reserves the > right to invade his students' privacy and to > disrespect them while at the same time > demanding that they respect his own privacy > and person are not at all incompatible. They > just show that Snape doesn't go with the > reciprocating-to-inferiors moral code, and > there's nothing inherently wrong with that. It seems to me Snape stopped being quite so respectful during the conversation Hagrid overheard; is that a clue? > Sandy aka msbeadsley wrote: > ""The One Right Moral Code" changes from > country to country and believer to believer. > There is no absolute code, " > Del replies: > Exactly! What constitutes the One Right Moral > Code is particular to each person, and this > is why it cannot be used to judge others, and > it cannot be morally imposed on anyone else. > Which is precisely why I find it unfair to try > and force a particular brand of morality on > Snape. Snape has expectations of others; he expects them to behave towards him in certain ways. Regardless of whether it is his "inferiors" or not, Snape has clearly "bought in" to certain codes. As a matter of fact, he is still apparently steamed that the Marauders were not dealt with harshly. It seems unfair to him still. If he rails against unfairness, and it seems clear he does, there's a moral code involved. Otherwise, there is no standard for fairness. So Snape has argued for what he considers right and wrong; he has invested in some part of a code, and should be held accountable by that code. It's the one he chose. > Sandy aka msbeadsley wrote: > "Personally, I recognize no deity; on the > other hand, the idea of life under no code or > law strikes me as terrifying and appalling. I > want to live in a world where people balance > their own wants and needs against the wants > and needs of others. I consider it a kind of > social barter system; I believe people grant > each other rights because they want to have > some themselves, and, essentially, there is > constant and infinite bargaining going on." > > Del replies: > That's the difference with LV: he doesn't > care about bargaining, because he has enough > *power* to actually impose his desires. And > unlike us, he's not at all afraid of living > in a lawless land, because he knows he's > powerful enough to survive it and even take > it over. Those are things he learned very > early in life: that he has the power to make > others do his will, and his "morality" is > directly derived from this knowledge. (I'm > saying " "morality" " when referring to LV's > code, because I think he's a sociopath, which > means that he doesn't actually have a morality.) I actually agree. I think Voldemort is evil. So now I'm mulling over the idea that true evil is a result of not so much breaking the rules, but of failing to recognize any exist or of putting oneself outside them deliberately. > As for Snape, we know that he always had poor > social skills, and that he never knew how or > bothered to do the social bargaining thing. > What he wants is respect from those "lower" > than him or on the same level as him, and he's > apparently ready to suck up to those higher > than him to obtain that. So LV's offer is > much more tempting for him than, say, DD's. > And I don't see that there's anything > inherently wrong with that either. I really don't get how you can argue in favor of Christ's teachings on one hand yet fail to see that Snape's behavior is inherently wrong. On a personal level, I mean, not abstractly. I can make just about anything come out clear in the abstract. ;-) Sandy aka msbeadsley, toasting Del's faith (a thing she admires in those who do it well) From sherriola at earthlink.net Wed Sep 21 04:50:37 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:50:37 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks Snape is guilty? Was: Why wizards are so i In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <007701c5be68$03a57b20$ea21f204@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 140576 Deb: Whether Snape is good, bad, or indifferent is not the issue at the moment. Whatever curse, hex, jinx or spell he threw at DD up there on the tower(with no canon as to what level of verbal intensity he was using -Moody and Wormtail were very loud and forceful when they said "AK" - in HBP it could be read like Snape said it casually), it did NOT act like an AK. While it had the external appearance of one (the green light- but in HBP described as a "jet" and not as a "blinding flash"), it caused DD to be "blasted into the air". Where as in the other incidences we the readers know of.. and the ones that Harry has direct knowledge of .... the effect of the AK was to cause "instantaneous" death. And the victim, be it spider or Hogwart's student or anyone else, drops in his, her, it's tracks! They do NOT go blasting into the air. Sherry responds: I'm not convinced. Whatever happened at Godric's Hollow, it blew up the house! So what's so strange about Snape's curse blasting Dumbledore into the air? And in the long run, whatever curse was used, be it AK or something else, the end result is still the same. Dumbledore is dead at Snape's hand. Harry witnessed it happen. > Deb: Perhaps what Harry is supposed to do is to THINK! And not just react. He is now almost 17 years old and in the eyes of the WW he is an adult. He has had 6 years worth of excellent education at HW, he has experienced many instances where appearances are deceptive, and he is capable of logical and complex reasoning. He also knows that reacting and overreacting from pure emotions can lead to dire consequences. He has been told over and over by Snape, by DD, by others as well to curb his emotions. If Snape did not use an AK on Dumbledore, what did he use? And if not the AK, then what effect was he going for? And why? Sherry now: Here's what Harry had to deal with that night. Would any of us be thinking or acting rationally under these circumstances? He has just learned, that very night, that Snape is the one who told Voldemort about the prophecy, and therefore is indirectly responsible for the death of Harry's parents; Harry has undertaken a dangerous and terrifying mission with Dumbledore; he has nearly been killed by infiri; he has returned with a sick and injured Dumbledore to Hogwarts only to find the castle under attack; he has been frozen on the tower powerless to help as Draco comes up planning to kill Dumbledore; he has watched Draco not go through with it but witnessed death eaters mocking and threatening Dumbledore, including the vicious Grayback. and then, oh then, when Snape appears, he must surely expect that Snape is going to help. As much as Harry has always hated Snape, part of him has tried to believe in Dumbledore's trust I think. And what happens? Snape pulls out his wand, utters the killing curse, and presto, Dumbledore is dead! How can anyone seriously expect Harry not to believe what he believes? I think the finest police officer, FBI agent or any other top notch law enforcement officer in the same circumstances would believe what they saw. Snape said a curse, and Dumbledore is dead. It's pretty simple really. If Snape is to be redeemed in the last book, which I actually fervently hope not now, then I hope the circumstances will be that Snape did indeed cold bloodedly murder Dumbledore, for his own reasons, but comes to true remorse and commits some act that proves it, not only to the sentimental reader who wants to believe it, but to Harry, who does not and will not want to believe it. That would be a satisfying redemption. It would not be satisfying to me, if again, Harry is wrong, all wrong, poor, misguided, hapless stupid boy. No, Sevvy wouldn't hurt a fly and never killed Dumbledore and someone like Hermione is going to lay it al out for Harry, and Harry is going to feel terrible. Been there, done that. I like my idea of a true murder, but then a true remorse and redemption much better. Of course, as always, only JKR knows for sure. Sherry From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Sep 21 04:53:14 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 04:53:14 -0000 Subject: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks Snape is guilty? Was: Why wizards are so i In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140577 Deb: > Perhaps what Harry is supposed to do is to THINK! And not just > react. He is now almost 17 years old and in the eyes of the WW he is > an adult. He has had 6 years worth of excellent education at HW, he > has experienced many instances where appearances are deceptive, and > he is capable of logical and complex reasoning. He also knows that > reacting and overreacting from pure emotions can lead to dire > consequences. He has been told over and over by Snape, by DD, by > others as well to curb his emotions. If Snape did not use an AK on > Dumbledore, what did he use? And if not the AK, then what effect was > he going for? And why? Jen: Harry just saw his mentor and the 'last and greatest of his protectors' apparently killed in cold blood by someone completely unexpected. I seriously doubt any human, wizard or Muggle, would be capable of detaching himself and cooly analyzing that situation. Remember Harry is frozen to the wall, and has had to stand by defenseless while Dumbledore weakens and slips down the ramparts, taunted by DE's who should never have been in Hogwarts in the first place. Not to mention Harry spent the evening in Voldemort's death trap force-feeding Dumbeldore potion and watching him writhe and cry in pain. The boy's had a hard night! Harry's own conflicted relationship with Snape is one thing, but how he interprets the situation *in the moment* was completely reasonable given what he knows and doesn't know on the tower. What Harry sees is Dumbledore apparently pleading with Snape, which frightens Harry, and then a look of hatred and revulsion on Snape's face as he points his wand at DD and says "Avada Kedavra." I mean, that last one is the kicker. I seriously doubt Harry is taking that moment to review every Avada Kedavra he's seen or heard about and mentally ticking up the list as to whether Snape really meant it, or whether it was a real AK or maybe another spell designed to throw DD *over* the tower, but not actually kill him....that analysis is for message boards, not terrible, shocking moments when your brain is frozen in horror. What Harry *doesn't* know would fill a book. He knows nothing about the clauses of the Unbreakable except that Snape is sworn to protect Draco; he's never been privy to why Dumbledore trusts Snape and in the last 10 hours, he's discovered Snape was indirectly responsible for his parent's deaths but DD accepted him back in the fold. Do I think Harry has interpreted this scene wrong? Yes, I do. Do I think someone will attempt to help him work out what happened on the tower? Yes again. But for gosh sakes, Dumbledore is hardly in the tomb! Harry is reeling not only from his death, but from his night in the cave, and the huge task ahead of him searching for the Horcruxes. Pippin: > How do you think Harry is going to feel if he manages to get > Snape killed or punished, (or thinks he has) and then finds out > that events on the tower were not what they seemed to be. Do you > think he's *not* going to ask himself why he didn't notice the > conflicting evidence before? Do you think he'd be proud of himself > if he realized he had let his hatred run away with him? Jen: I think he'll feel guilty and like a total schmuck, just as he did after Sirius' death. But he'll move on, and keep his eye on the brass ring--defeating Voldemort. Jen, shining up her DoH badge and thinking Harry did the best he could in the moment. From lady.indigo at gmail.com Wed Sep 21 06:10:02 2005 From: lady.indigo at gmail.com (lady.indigo at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 02:10:02 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks Snape is guilty? Was: Why wizards are In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <63378ee705092023106b787fcf@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140578 On 9/21/05, lebeto033 wrote: > > I just can't see any evidence that points towards anything other > than Snape killing Dumbledore. Sure, evidence can be brought into > light at some later point but a telepathic conversation is possible > but it's only conjecture. > I'd say there's much more that's suspect than the possible conversation or why Dumbledore would plead with Snape. (Something the 'Dumbledore would never plead' argument doesn't take into account is that he may be pleading that Snape doesn't turn to the dark side, worried about Snape's fate as opposed to his own. But I digress.) The ambiguity behind the Dumbledore murder probably wouldn't hold up in court, but it's definitely a question of what Dumbledore knew and how he acted accordingly. First of all, Dumbledore's words are full of 'if I should have to leave you's from the very start of the book. There's a level of finality to everything he says and does, which I don't think is just an author's tool. Sirius never acted that way before his death (though we did spend more time with him before he died). If I were Harry I'd have at least noticed. Second, Dumbledore put Snape in the cursed DADA position, which I think says a great deal. Yes, there might have been more benevolent ways of seeing Snape doesn't get a second DADA year, but the curse has never been kind before and seeing as it IS a curse, cast by Voldemort no less, I don't think it ever would be. Dumbledore put Snape at considerable risk for a reason, I think, when he had no need to. He didn't HAVE to use Snape to fill the DADA position; he could have had Slughorn and Snape share Potions classes, for instance, remniscent of Trelawney and Firenze, or given Snape some other duties. Most importantly is everything Dumbledore was completely and totally aware of and how he did nothing to act on it. He knew there was an Unbreakable Vow involving Snape and Draco. He knew Draco was on a mission to kill him. If he's either perceptive or (most likely through Snape) informed enough to see the murder plot is meant for him and who is meant to carry it out, as well as be completely unsurprised when he learns Snape and Draco are involved in this vow, I don't think he's beyond at least guessing the possibility of HOW Snape is bound to protect Draco, no matter how much he trusts Snape. People keep thinking that the best thing for Snape to do was give up his own life, but why? He's an incredibly valuable spy who needs to renew the faith of the Death Eaters. Dumbledore has been ailing, arguably even dying (I'm a pretty solid follower of the 'stoppered death' theory by now), and whatever power he has, it's known that Harry's the only one who can defeat Voldemort in the end. Obviously Dumbledore's not going to sacrifice Draco's well-being. Dumbledore being the one who must die actually seems like a natural conclusion to me. I keep coming back to Ron's SS speech: "There has to be sacrifices." I thought that was foreshadowing Ron's death. Now I think it foreshadowed Dumbledore's. It couldn't have possibly referred to Sirius, who died not for the sake of strategy or a greater good but instead rather needlessly and pointlessly, much like most deaths in wartime. And then not only does Dumbledore freeze Harry on the tower, preventing any interference, but his corpse seems serene and his portrait is smiling and sleeping peacefully. And Snape hardly seems to be gloating, in fact wearing a look at one point like he's in pain. But no, I don't think Harry's an idiot for not having put all this together at a highly dramatic and emotional moment. Even if he were to do so later, he'd be operating on a lot of faith - I know I certainly am - and with much more personal bias against Snape than I have. I hope he'll certainly notice these things then, instead of just thinking that Dumbledore was someone utterly blind, who placed 'inexcuseable' trust in Snape for a reason anyone could have poked holes in. I do think he'd seem smarter and more mature for noticing this stuff. But even then I'm not sure how he could act on it. Again, none of it is the kind of evidence that could hold up for sure. As for the Avada Kedavra, it could very possibly have the potential to make the struck wizard fly up in the air. We don't know every time it was ever used, or the levels of power it might hit with, or if any other circumstances could have come into play. And is it possible the blood could have come from falling from that great height? (I'm not a CSI, unfortunately, I couldn't say for sure.) Either way, they're details we missed easily enough and that Harry could have easily not thought about right away. (He's not a CSI, either.) If it turns out when tempers have cooled that the flying and blood were impossible, well, *then* I'd expect him to think about it. But only then. - Lady Indigo [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lebeto033 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 04:56:45 2005 From: lebeto033 at yahoo.com (lebeto033) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 04:56:45 -0000 Subject: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks Snape is guilty? Was: Why wizards are In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140579 > Deb: > GOF page 638 (Amer h.b. edition) > A blast of green light blazed through Harry's eyelids, > and he heard something heavy fall to the round 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. > Cedric was lying spread-eagled on the ground beside him. He > was dead. lebeto: Not to nitpick here but Harry never saw that curse nor what it did to Cedric's body as evident by the light "blaz(ing) through Harry's eyelids". > from GOF page 217 (Amer. h.b edition) -spider AK > " "Avada Kadavra!" Moody roared. > 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 onto its > back, unmarked, but unmistakably dead". lebeto: Another small point but the spider did seem to roll onto his back, he didn't just fall, so it is some precedent for movement of the body surely not to the scale that happened to Dumbledore, but of course different body size, who knows. > Deb again: > HBP page 596 (Amer. h.b. edition) > "Snape raised his wand and pointed it directly at Dumbledore. > "Avada Kadavra" > A jet of green light shot from the end of Snape's wand and > hit Dumbledore squarely in the chest. Harry's scream of horror > never left him; silent and unmoving, he was forced to watch as > **Dumbledore was blasted into the air**. For a split second he > seemed to hang suspended beneath the shining skull and then he > fell slowly backward, like a great rag doll, over the > battlements and out of sight". (added emphasis my own). > > Whatever curse, hex, jinx or spell he threw at DD up > there on the tower it did NOT act like an AK. While it > had the external appearance of one (the green light- but in > HBP described as a "jet" and not as a "blinding flash"), it > caused DD to be "blasted into the air". Where as in the other > incidences we the readers know of.. and the ones that Harry > has direct knowledge of .... the effect of the AK was to > cause "instantaneous" death. And the victim, be it spider or > Hogwarts student or anyone else, drops in his, her, its > tracks! They do NOT go blasting into the air. lebeto: Sometimes I wonder if the lack of a good explanation of the AK was always to promote discussion of this scene. If so I cannot believe the genius of JKR. Frankly, in all of the text it never seems to do the same thing twice. OOTP p 813 US version "'You have irked me too ofter, for too long. AVADA KEDAVRA.... The spell merely glanced off its chest as the statue flung out its arms, protecting Harry." "He sent another killing curse at Dumbledore but missed, instead hitting the security guard's desk, which burst into flame." OOTP p 814 "Another jet of green light flew....This time is it was the one- armed centaur...that took the blast and shattered into a hundered pieces. Here it is not specifically called a killing curse but it appears that Voldemort keeps shooting AKs and this one and the one Fawkes swallowed are both described as jets. The killing curse seems to not have any specific way of acting, only that it doesn't leave a mark on the body. It doesn't really say if more emotion can cause movement of the body or in this case burning of desks and blowing up of statues. All it leaves is no discernable cause of death. It seems to me that Harry wouldn't have any real clue about what the curse does in action only the end results. No one can absolutely say that Snape cast an AK or not because I don't think the AK has been described in detail. But I do think that Harry is not jumping to conclusions when he said Snape murdered Dumbledore. He might not have all the information but right now he has the most of anyone but Snape and DD and has come to a solid conclusion. From torinarg at hotmail.co.uk Wed Sep 21 05:26:45 2005 From: torinarg at hotmail.co.uk (Mark) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 05:26:45 -0000 Subject: Hagrid in GH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140580 > Geoff: > He wouldn't try to lie low in the Welsh valleys. Sparsely > populated is hardly the description I would use. The Welsh > valleys were the centre of the coal-mining areas and are the > centre of heavy industry. > > Geoff: > On the question of distances, Bristol lies about 120 > miles almost due west of London. If we place Little Whinging > on the western edge of the capital and assume that there will > be fairly quick access to the M4 motorway, you could get from > there to the centre of Bristol in a little over 1? hours; the > speed limit on a dual carriageway in the UK is 70 mph. If, as > some of us think, Godric's Hollow is perhaps beyond Swansea in > West Wales would be a further 2 hours or so. Indeed the Welsh Valleys are a highly industrialised area, alas since the downfull of the coal industry they are now some of the poorest and most deprived areas of the UK. However, further to the west, past Swansea, is a very rural area wehere the rather mystic Welsh language is still spoken, GH could well be in that area, and Bristol would be on a direct path to the rather affluent Surrey. "torinarg" From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 06:31:33 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 06:31:33 -0000 Subject: Severus Unbound (Was: Bonder in Unbreakable Vow) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140581 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > ...edited... > Carol adds: > ...edited... > > The third provision has been fulfilled (DD is really dead, or else > Snape would be dead). But I'm not sure about the provisions to help > and protect Draco. ... bboyminn: Straying from the central subject, let me say, don't get too carried away. Look at the actual Vows - "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 if prove necesary... 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?" 1.) Snape only has to watch over Draco as he attempts to do the Dark Lord's wishes. Sorry but that's not a very strong vow, and requires very little action or effort on Snape's part 2.) Too the best of his ability, Snape will protect Draco. That doesn't mean he will or even has to succeed, it only means he has to try. 3.) If it SEEMS that Draco will fail, Snape has to carry out 'the Deed'. So, what happens if Snape doesn't know what 'the deed' is when he makes the Vow, is he still bound to it? Is he bound to the unknown? Or, what if Snape interprets 'the deed' as fixing the Vanishing Cabinet, is he absolved of helping murder Dumbledore? Not is he absolved by law, but is he absolved by the Vow considering 'the deed' was never specified, just assumed. > Carol Continues: > Snape got Draco safely off the Hogwarts grounds, but we have no idea > what happened to them afterwards. (My guess is that Snape persuaded > Voldemort that Draco made the killing of DD possible by fixing the > vanishing cabinet and letting the DEs into Hogwarts; certainly DD > would not be dead if it had not been for Draco's actions. But of > course I could be completely wrong here.) > bboyminn: No, I think you are right. Unless I'm mistaken Narcissa says that she doesn't think Voldemort expects Draco to succeed, and Narcissa seems convinced that Draco won't succeed. So, I don't think his failure will catch anyone by suprise. But, Draco certainly won't have the status he hoped for, and I have no doubt that he will be punished by Voldemort. But he will live. He has proved some worth, and Snape will help convince Voldemort that 'some worth' is worthwhile. > Carol concludes: > > He knows quite well that the consequence of breaking > an Unbreakable Vow is death. > > Carol bboyminn: I'm pretty sure the Vow is over. Of course, it's difficult to tell, so much of it was vague and implied that I wonder if it was ever in force. To the central point, I think Bellatrix is merely a facilitator of the creation of the Vow. Now that it's done she is out of the picture. For more info, see my published works. (If you haven't already.) Dumbledore's flawed plan - Snape's Vow http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/136291 Unbreakable Vow Truly Unbreakable http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/138895 Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Wed Sep 21 09:45:21 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:45:21 -0000 Subject: Snape vs Wormtail - Life Debt Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140583 I had taken a sabbatical from the Snape Good/Evil debate for the last month or so as the two sides had argued themselves to a standstill. However, I return ready to face Alla and friends with some new evidence to suggest Snape is fighting for good. It concerns life debts. Let us consider the two characters who we know have been bound by a life debt in the HP series i.e. Severus Snape (James Potter) & Peter Pettigrew (Harry Potter). Snape - During PS/SS Severus Snape intentionally saves Harry during the Quidditch match. Pettigrew - During GOF, Pettigrew intentionally draws blood from Harry and generally assists Voldemort in trying to end Harry's life. So it appears that someone can CHOOSE to ignore a life debt, as Pettigrew does. The deep magic that DD talked about does NOT automatically prevent an individual under a life debt from causing harm to the object of the life debt. If we consider Snape's actions. Firstly his life debt was not owed to Harry, it was owed to James. And secondly it is quite apparent that Snape could have chosen to ignore this debt. However, he did not. Despite his obvious loathing of James + Harry, he felt honour bound to protect Harry. He does the honourable thing!! Now, I can hear Alla from the other side of the Atlantic telling me that Snape's treatment of his students is not very honourable. But I would counter that Snape would feel duty bound to teach his students, but not necessarily have to be nice to them. If we also consider Snape & DD in HBP, DD ends their conversation with the fact that Snape had given his word. Honourable people will always place great importance on carrying out any promises/commitments they have made. Therefore what happened at the end of HBP, was due to an agreement between DD & Snape. Snape had given his word, and I think canon supports that he would be good to his word! Brothergib (convinced that if someone can change my mind about Harry Horcrux, then I can do the same with Snape!!) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Sep 21 10:01:22 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:01:22 -0000 Subject: Hagrid in GH (and Harry at PD) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140584 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mark" wrote: > > Geoff: > > He wouldn't try to lie low in the Welsh valleys. Sparsely > > populated is hardly the description I would use. The Welsh > > valleys were the centre of the coal-mining areas and are the > > centre of heavy industry. > > > > Geoff: > > On the question of distances, Bristol lies about 120 > > miles almost due west of London. If we place Little Whinging > > on the western edge of the capital and assume that there will > > be fairly quick access to the M4 motorway, you could get from > > there to the centre of Bristol in a little over 1? hours; the > > speed limit on a dual carriageway in the UK is 70 mph. If, as > > some of us think, Godric's Hollow is perhaps beyond Swansea in > > West Wales would be a further 2 hours or so. torinarg: > Indeed the Welsh Valleys are a highly industrialised area, alas > since the downfull of the coal industry they are now some of the > poorest and most deprived areas of the UK. However, further to > the west, past Swansea, is a very rural area wehere the rather > mystic Welsh language is still spoken, GH could well be in that > area, and Bristol would be on a direct path to the rather > affluent Surrey. Geoff: I have been turning my mind a little further to this question. Some of the points I am about to make - particularly about Harry during the journey - have been aired in the distant past, but blowing the dust off them might get people thinking again. First, looking at Hagrid's journey. The consensus of opinion and canon evidence tends to place Little Whinging to the west of London, north of the river and probably close to Heathrow in the area I have labelled "Surrey-that-was-Middlesex". If you draw a straight line from here to Bristol and project it westwards, you miss the Welsh coast altogether and Ireland and are heading across the pond! So Hagrid could not have stuck rigidly to a straight line. In message 140519, Musicgal raised the question a day or so ago as to whether Hagrid could Apparate. I replied "Why not? I know he says that he is not allowed to do magic but does this count? Some people have also suggested that he might have Apparated when Harry left Paddington on the train home... `The train pulled out of the station. Harry wanted to watch Hagrid until he was out of sight; he rose in his seat and pressed his nose against the window but he blinked and Hagrid was gone.' (PS "Diagon Alley" p.66 UK edition)" This suggests to me that Hagrid may have Apparated to Godric's Hollow to be there in time to help after the attack. Now, I harbour suspicions that Hagrid's navigational skills may not be of the best so that when he was on Sirius' motorbike with Harry, he would look for the easiest way to get back to London. From West Wales, he could have followed two options - to follow the coast past Swansea, Porthcawl and round to Cardiff, or to pick up the western end of the M4 motorway at Pont Abraham and follow that into towards Cardiff. Remember that it was dark so a coastline or a motorway would have made it easier for him. From Cardiff, the M4 motorway could be followed over the old Severn Bridge (the new one wasn't opened until the mid-1990s) and Little Whinging couldn't be far off this route as you approach London. The second point - about Harry - arises from the fact that Harry was 15 months old when Godric's Hollow was attacked. He was not a baby, but most likely a toddler. The great majority of children are able to get around by this age. On the way, he was awake until they reached Bristol but possibly quiet and Hagrid did have him in his arms but what about when Dumbledore placed him on the doorstep? I have doubts whether a toddler of 15 months placed in this situation would normally remain tucked up and asleep for several hours which apparently was the case with Harry. Did Dumbledore cast some sort of sleeping spell on him to prevent him crawling off to explore the garden? From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Sep 21 11:10:04 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:10:04 -0000 Subject: Conflict, imposition, and morality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140585 Sandy: *(snip)* > It seems to me Snape stopped being quite so > respectful during the conversation Hagrid > overheard; is that a clue? I think it might be, if you're talking about moral/behavioral codes. What one does in private can be different than what one does in public. In public, one presents a united front, toward students if one is a teacher, toward neighbors if one is part of a family. Showing discord or falling apart publicly is 'airing dirty linen in public' and is discouraged. That they took their discussion to a place where even the portraits couldn't overhear, may indicate something along these lines. And, since one is a spy and the other is his superior in a more military sense, it makes even more sense not to go airing their differences publicly. Sandy: *(snip)* > Snape has expectations of others; he expects them > to behave towards him in certain ways. Regardless > of whether it is his "inferiors" or not, Snape has > clearly "bought in" to certain codes. As a matter > of fact, he is still apparently steamed that the > Marauders were not dealt with harshly. It seems > unfair to him still. If he rails against unfairness, > and it seems clear he does, there's a moral code > involved. Otherwise, there is no standard for > fairness. So Snape has argued for what he considers > right and wrong; he has invested in some part of a > code, and should be held accountable by that code. > It's the one he chose. Since religion has been brought in, I don't feel too bad in furthering it. *g* I've been reading along here, and it seems to me that Snape is behaving much like the Good Brother in the parable of the Prodigal Son. The way that parable is usually taught, the older brother who did no wrong, is considered to be petty at the least for feeling steamed that his younger brother, who took his inheritance, blew it, practically gave their father 'the finger' when he left, is welcomed back with open arms and the killing of an animal apparently intended for celebration. While the good brother has continued on the family farm, respected their father, done his duty, not shamed the family name, and so forth, and got no obvious reward. He certainly wasn't feted! Snape insisting that Harry work with the incident cards for his detention, so he could see how bad his father and the other Marauders were, I think, supports this sort of reading. The parable goes on to make the point that the father, being a father, is just plain glad that his son, who may well have been dead since he had no contact with his family for some time, is back. It suggests that the good son (no, I haven't seen that movie) is *wrong* not to be happy that his father is happy. And that's valid, too. But, the good brother isn't wrong in feeling put out, either. I think any of us could sympathize, if the parable wasn't meant to show something totally different. Good brother has been good all along, yet he's pushed aside because the bad brother comes crawling home. Snape is pushed aside, told not to tell about Lupin's 'furry little problem' even though it nearly got him killed. He's put into danger by spying, while every effort was made to keep James and his family safe. He's done what he was expected to do, kept to the rules, while Harry has broken them all over creation - one of those kids who get away with murder while other kids would be punished. And, he's celebrated, James is well-liked, while Snape, doing what he's supposed to do, is pretty much ignored unless it's to send him into more danger. As if his life isn't as valuable or desired as Harry's or James's. And, all this talk about a twenty year old grudge, I do stop and think, it isn't twenty years old. It's as recent as the last DE meeting Snape attended, definitely as recent as the end of GoF. The Order protects James and Harry; the Order throws Snape to the lions. Ceridwen. From Cairie.Witter at resbank.co.za Wed Sep 21 07:50:35 2005 From: Cairie.Witter at resbank.co.za (Cairie Witter) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:50:35 +0200 Subject: apparition for Hagrid Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140586 darqali wrote: > P.S. We are never told how the Durselys got off that island, since > Harry and Hagrid took the only boat. I have had a lot of fun > speculating about that. Odd that Harry was not punished for > leaving them stranded, though, and we are never told he was. Allie: > The Dursleys were terrified of Harry when he came back from Hogwarts, > they probably didn't want to instigate! I must admit, I never thought about the fact that the Dursleys had to get off the Island. I'd love to hear any ideas about that. As far as apparition is concerned, I'm thinking that, looking at Hagrid's size, it would be very difficult to apparate. Harry finds apparition very uncomfortable. Can you imagine how uncomfortable it would be for Hagrid? I would think that splinching for him would be a definite possibility. Cairie From quigonginger at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 13:39:36 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:39:36 -0000 Subject: Filk: Don't Hand Those Clothes to Me Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140587 "Don't Hand Those Clothes to Me" to the tune of "Don't Stand so Close to Me" by the Police. To the highly informative penguin. Kreacher, whose greatest desire is to be hung with his ancesters, would naturally fear being freed, don't you think? Kreacher, refering to himself in the third person, as per Official Elvin Syntax (TM) sings: Poor Kreacher, the subject Of Master's enmity. He wants out so badly, Knows where he wants to be. Inside here, there's Half-bloods, And Mudbloods have free range. His heart aches, and it goes now To Bellatrix Lestrange. Don't hand, Don't hand those, Don't hand those clothes to me. Don't hand, Don't hand those, Don't hand those clothes to me. Narcissa's so jealous. You know how Black girls get. Sometimes she misses Dobby And wants a Kreacher-pet. With manipulation, His Master he defies. When Master says "Get out now!" To Malfoy house he flies. Don't hand, Don't hand those, Don't hand those clothes to me. Don't hand, Don't hand those, Don't hand those clothes to me. Wild beast in the bedroom To hurt he has to try. The wall has more headroom. The amputation's nigh! It's no use, He's needed To send that Potter off To meet with McNair, Crabbe, Rookwood, and Dolohov. Don't hand, Don't hand those, Don't hand those clothes to me. Don't hand, Don't hand those, Don't hand those clothes to me. Ginger, who hopes Kreacher will get his heart's desire. I love a happy ending. From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Sep 21 13:52:10 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:52:10 -0000 Subject: Hepzibah Smith, Tobias Snape, & Nathaniel Hawthorne... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140588 Talisman wrote: > I must say that reflecting on the HP series has frequently brought > Hawthorne to mind, more for genre comparison than anything else. > As I've posted several times, long ago (at least back to 2003), I > consider Rowling's style a renewed version of Romanticism, > the genre to which Hawthorne's works belong. Potioncat: Erm, could you give us a brief definition of Romanticism, for those of us who last studied literature decades ago? >Talisman: > I must also say, at the outset, that though I would like to find > Hawthorne in the HP series, and may in fact find interesting > similarities, I can't quite bring myself to believe that Rowling--a > woman who has insisted on all-Brit actors for the HP movies, and who > has indicated in an interview that she will not portray > any "American" witches, beyond the contingent seen at the QWC-- > would intentionally base, even part, of her series on the works or > life of such a quintessential American writer. Potioncat: Her work has been compared to Mark Twain too...I'm not sure how much American literature is read in the UK, but I find it hard to believe as well. However, I could accept that if she's read Hawthorne, she would have been influenced by him. How could she not be? I've snipped some great information from Taliman's post. But based on Hawthorne's treatment of witch-hunters, I'm beginning to think JKR may make Tobias an American Muggle. It would be a very fitting dig at the modern witch hunters who blasted the HP series. Oh the horror! Poor Severus would have quite a bit more to overcome than we ever suspected. In spite of all the other sources for the name Severus, it does sound like something a Puritan would name his son. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Sep 21 13:53:39 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:53:39 -0000 Subject: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks Snape is guilty? Was: Why wizards are so i In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140589 Combining Alla:(140550) I think that he is acting as any person who would just witnessed a killing in front of his eyes, but that is just me. Sherry: (140576) Here's what Harry had to deal with that night. Would any of us be thinking or acting rationally under these circumstances? Jen:(140577) I seriously doubt any human, wizard or Muggle, would be capable of detaching himself and cooly analyzing that situation that analysis is for message boards, not terrible, shocking moments when your brain is frozen in horror. Pippin: Um, that's what I said. He's not acting rationally. I didn't say he should be expected to. If you would like me to say, "His judgement is impaired" rather than, "I'm pretty sure he's acting like an idiot" -- okay :-) But given that he's not acting rationally, is it good judgement to appoint himself judge, jury and executioner? If he only wanted to bring Snape to justice, I wouldn't have used the word idiot. But he's already tried to crucio him. That's not justice. His last word was that it will be the better for him and the worse for Snape if Harry catches up with him --which I take to mean, if Harry finds him before the Aurors do. If he knows even less about Avada Kedavra than we do, is it not unwise to pre-empt the judgement of those who know more? If he knows more, if he knows for certain than the killing curse can throw a living target into the air, or that the body can assume a peaceful expression or bleed after death, then JKR is cheating. So far she has been very careful not to cheat, even to the point of admitting unintentional red herrings. In fact, she's said that there *is* hope that Snape is not guilty, and she refused to say that he was evil. Granted she was laughing, but is the laugh on those who presume innocence until guilt is proven, or on those who have made up their minds in advance? I suppose I sound as if *I* have made up my mind in advance. But I would probably be as much on the fence about Snape as anyone if it weren't far too late for the Evil!Lupin clues to turn out to be intentional red herrings. They could be unintentional red herrings, cough*Vampire!Snape*cough, of course. But I think it hangs together far too logically for that, something even I never claimed for Vampire!Snape Pippin From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 14:27:07 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:27:07 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Life Debt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140590 > Ceridwen: > And, wouldn't it be just par for the course, for a friend to save > another friend? It's less expected, therefore more striking, when one > saves an enemy. It's clear that it isn't done for personal reasons, > but for higher ideals. That the animosity or outright hate is set > aside to do this deed is probably a part of it. Finwitch: I'd say it's also expected for an adult to save the life of a child - particularly if that adult happens to be in loco parentis concerning the child in question. Who'd expect a child to save an adult, regardless of emotions.. Sure, it's tricky when we speak of an almost-of-age and his friend who just-became-of-age, but there's nothing like that with Harry saving Pettigrew. At the very least, I doubt the emotional 'enemy'-status is the thing. The point on exceeding expectations could well be it, though. You know, like with Healers and Aurors - they're more or less *expected* to save lives, it's in the job-description. Do you think that in the case of say, a Healer saving the life of a patient who also happens to be the Healer's enemy in some sense -- such as rivalling the Healer in a love affair that patient would owe a magical life-debt? Let's see about this life-saving business by OWL-grade. Saving a life as a line of duty (as Auror, Healer, parent or teacher) counts for Accepted as long as the life really is saved... Saving a life that's your enemy's, child saving an adult, risking your own at the process... Exceeds Expectations A situation like Harry saving Pettigrew: Outstanding. Point being: He, at the age of 13, saved the life of a full grown man who was guilty of such treachery that Harry had, in a certain point of view, the right to *kill* him in revenge. Would a magical life-debt require an Outstanding grade in this? Or would Exceeds Expectations suffice? And how would you grade Harry&Ron saving Hermione from the Troll, considering they risked their lives, were expected to be savely in their dormitory and she wasn't their friend yet, only a class-mate... (Of course, if she did owe them a life-debt for that, she has saved their lives already - Devil's Snare for example - and therefore paid off already). In this case, at least, it created a friendship... I don't, however, think that a magical life-debt would cause a rift between them - unless the saver was indecent enough to well, claim that he was the better of them for it or something... Finwitch From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Sep 21 14:30:32 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:30:32 -0000 Subject: Lapdogs?? (wasRe: re:Ages/) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140591 > Jessica wrote: (but I forgot to make note of the post number) > I thought "lagdogs" was a clever pun combining "lapdogs" and "fags" (the > British schoolboy kind, not the gay kind). Seriously. Potioncat: Well, I didn't intend the pun, but that is what I was thinking of. Only I didn't know quite how to explain it. Does anyone want to take it on? > Neri: > I'm contemplating a new theory, something about an experimental time > turner that was used at Hogwarts during those years. An accidental > time slip happened and several years were spent in a time loop. These > were the years of Charlie's winning streak and the years that Tonks > had lost . Potioncat: Oddly enough I've read a similar theory, based on Molly recalling a different set of people at Hogwarts. I thought I read it at the Lexicon or at Fantastic Posts, but darned if I can find it now! > Neri: > Another possibility that was proposed to me (can't remember by whom) > is that Bella and Andromeda are twins. Bella is still the oldest but > they're in the same year. Potioncat: That makes more sense than anything else. Now, would JKR have any reason to keep that from us or could it be so unimportant as to not be stated. From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 14:40:16 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:40:16 -0000 Subject: apparition for Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140592 Cairie: > I must admit, I never thought about the fact that the Dursleys had to get off the Island. I'd love to hear any ideas about that. > > As far as apparition is concerned, I'm thinking that, looking at Hagrid's size, it would be very difficult to apparate. Harry finds apparition very uncomfortable. Can you imagine how uncomfortable it would be for Hagrid? I would think that splinching for him would be a definite possibility. Finwitch: I doubt Hagrid has apparition licence. Harry didn't get to begin training until sixth year and Hagrid was - although unfairly - expelled on his third year and banned from using magic. So I'd say Hagrid does not even know how to apparate. As for his getting onto the rock, he tells Harry: 'I flew.' I speculate it was on the flying Motorcycle Sirius lent him. At least we *saw* that motorcycle before the event. Anyway, it's entirely possible that the motorcycle is *still* on that rock. It's Harry's now, of course, just like everything else Sirius ever owned... As for the Dursleys getting off-- I think that the person who rented the hut - or the boat - would have gone and get them once Hagrid and Harry got off it... Finwitch From fuzzlebub85 at aol.com Wed Sep 21 15:01:59 2005 From: fuzzlebub85 at aol.com (fuzzlebub85 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:01:59 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape vs Wormtail - Life Debt Message-ID: <68.5e3980cb.3062cfe7@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140593 (snipped most of Brothergib's post) If we consider Snape's actions. Firstly his life debt was not owed to Harry, it was owed to James. And secondly it is quite apparent that Snape could have chosen to ignore this debt. However, he did not. Despite his obvious loathing of James + Harry, he felt honour bound to protect Harry. He does the honourable thing!! (snipped the rest of it) Kaylee now: Ah, good point. He owed a life debt to James, did he not? The question is, if he told the prophecy to Voldemort, doesn't that make him, oh, the *tiniest* bit responsible for James' *death*? I bet this has been discussed to death already but I just noticed it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, Brothergib! Kaylee Tonks-Lupin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 15:08:29 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:08:29 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140594 knorte1 wrote: > ... but I'm wondering why everyone seems so completely convinced > that DD is really "dead." Amiable Dorsai: Though it breaks my heart to say it, I think Dumbledore is an ex-wizard. Fawkes sang his lament, and has left Hogwarts. Dumbledore's portrait has appeared in the Head... mistress's office. The office recognizes McGonagall's right to occupy it (compare this to the Umbridge fiasco). As zgirnius points out, the Unbreakable Vow has not killed Snape. Dumbledore is dead. I think he was dying as the book opened. I think he knew that; it would explain so very much: Why Dumbledore, the most patient of men, seemed so impatient this year. Why he was so blatant about his search for the Horcruxes--I mean he tried to keep his activities quiet, but it was a loud kind of quiet. Scrimgeour and McGonagall and everyone who was paying attention knew that he was up to something. This while he was on a quest that had to be kept secret, lest Voldemort twig to what he was up to and move the remaing Horcruxes. Why he finally took a hand in Harry's education, and taught him, not some Offense Against the Dark Arts magic, as so many of us had been expecting, but "How to find Horcruxes 101--figuring out what Tom is up to". I think that he realized that Harry was going to have to find the rest of the Horcruxes without his help. Other people can teach Why he finally put Snape in the DADA position, knowing that that probably meant he would lose Snape as a Hogwarts teacher, once the year ended. It was time for Dumbledore to expend some resources. Why he told Harry to tell his two biggest secrets--secrets he has not dared to tell anyone else, even Order members--to a couple of teenagers. He knew Harry was going to need support, support that Dumbledore would soon be unable to give him, and Ron and Hermione, for all their youth, have demonstrated time and again that they will march into Hell behind Harry. Dumbledore, in short, acted like a man who knew he had very little time before he would have to pass the torch. I hope he left Harry good notes. Amiable Dorsai From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 15:16:30 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:16:30 -0000 Subject: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks Snape is guilty? Was: Why wizards are In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140595 > Pippin: > If he knows more, if he knows for certain than the > killing curse can throw a living target into the air, > or that the body can assume a peaceful expression or bleed > after death... Bodies can bleed after death. Impact can cause blood to be expelled from a body. Trust me on this. Amiable Dorsai From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Sep 21 15:15:59 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:15:59 -0000 Subject: Gravy/Essentialism/Snape/Ages/Werewolf/PopularHermione/Occlumency/Fidelius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140596 > Pippin wrote in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140016 : > > << Of course Sirius would have been briefed on [Snape 'informed Voldie > that Sirius had returned to England? And Voldemort gave Snape > permission to kill Sirius, if he could get away with it'], which > throws an interesting light on the handshake at the end of GoF, and > the almost duel in OOP. >> Rita: > Snape and Voldemort could not have already discussed Sirius's return > to Britain when S and S shook hands at the end of GoF, because wasn't > that scene the first that Snape knew of Sirius's return? Pippin: I meant that Snape could have informed Voldemort that Sirius had returned to England when he, Snape, returned to Voldemort at the end of GoF, ie just after he had seen Sirius. Dumbledore must certainly have already discussed with Snape which information he was to reveal to Voldemort. Snape could have known already that Sirius had returned and yet express surprise, real or feigned, at seeing him turn up at Harry's bedside. > > OCCLUMENCY > Carol wrote in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140314 : > > << If Harry had been willing and able to learn [Occlumency] (and > hadn't looked in the Pensieve), he could have blocked the fake vision of Sirius and Sirius would not have died. >> Rita: > *sigh* Here we go again. Harry was not receiving LV's thoughts by > anything like normal Legilimency, so why would Occlumency, which > blocks normal Legilimency, block Harry's reception of LV's thoughts? Pippin: Dumbledore tells Harry that the reason that he cannot sense Voldemort's thoughts and his scar is not troubling him in HBP is that Voldemort is employing occlumency. That would suggest that if Harry had been able to learn occlumency he also could have used it to block the link. Pippin From Meliss9900 at aol.com Wed Sep 21 16:10:57 2005 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:10:57 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why are wizards so incompetent? /Evil Overlords/ Some... Message-ID: <19c.3c461edb.3062e011@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140597 In a message dated 9/20/2005 5:00:21 PM Central Standard Time, foxmoth at qnet.com writes: Pippin: Understand, I'm not a Harry-basher. But I don't think he's using his best judgement. He's acting like every sixteen year old who thought he knew more than his old man. Harry knows from first year that you can get a completely wrong idea of a conversation by listening to just part of it, that Snape and Dumbledore could not communicate openly in front of four Death Eaters, that Snape and Dumbledore are both experts at legilimency, that Dumbledore's actions have never made sense to him until they were explained, and that Dumbledore was withholding the explanations. He wiped blood away from the body, after being told that an avada kedavra curse should leave no sign. He hasn't stopped to wonder about any of these things. He's just taken it for granted that Snape murdered Dumbledore, based mostly on the way Snape has treated him, which is no more sensible than judging Sirius by the way he treated Kreacher. Pippin Oh Ok I see. I think that the circumstances of the situation also need to be taken into consideration. Harry had just seen the man he (arguably) admires the most killed by the person that he hates the most (I think at this point he probably hates Snape more than LV). I think that any one would be hard pressed to take a set back and rationally organise their thoughts and look for reason to disprove what they had just seen happen with their own eyes. (As for the AK not leaving a mark . .well that trickle of blood could be seen as literary license by the authoress). Now as book 7 progresses and if Harry is presented with clues and reasons for things not having happened as they seemed on that tower then I will agree that he is being an idiot. But right now I think he was being human. Melissa [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kjones at telus.net Wed Sep 21 16:28:55 2005 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:28:55 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Conflict, imposition, and morality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43318A47.6080408@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 140598 lupinlore wrote: > > Of course there's something inherently wrong with that. Moral wrong > is by definition "inherently" wrong -- there is no other thing it can > be. Nor are all moral codes created equal -- in the Potterverse or > any other. It is the nature of being human to impose your moral code > on others, whether that is what you think you are doing or not. By > definition, Snape thinks he is right and everyone else is wrong. By > definition, I think I'm right and everyone else is wrong. But that > does not mean that there is nothing inherently wrong with Snape's > position. From my position (and there is ONLY a personal position, > there is no objective position on morality, including morality of > relativism and/or tolerance) any position that does not agree with > what I believe to be right is inherently wrong. And everyone else in > the world approaches morality in exactly the same way, whether they > are willing to admit it or not. KJ writes: Interestingly enough, the New Catholic Dictionary defines moral good as acts which are directed to Man's ultimate end, i.e., when in conformity with right rational nature. Unfortunately, right rational nature is defined as that which constitutes the "proximate norm" of morality. It also states that the quality of moral goodness is dependant upon three factors: a) the object of the act itself, b) the purpose, and c) the circumstances of the act. Some moral codes are based on legal codes. One's choices may be based strictly upon legal statutes, in this way living a completely moral life while engaging in behaviour which most of us find reprehensible. Other codes are based strictly on religious principles, which obviously vary from one religion to another. The choices based on this model have led to murder and mayhem for centuries, still are today, and seem to be the models which most require all others to believe in the same moral code. The Moral Judgement Test on the Harvard website test morality based on decisions where the good of the many outweigh the costs to the few. This would seem to me the way that Dumbledore makes most of his decisions, and yet Dumbledore is held to be the epitome of good. It is a little uncomfortable for me to see him put an eleven year old in the path of danger in the hope of affecting an over-all good for the rest of the WW. I feel that he could have done better. I also have a little trouble with him sending all of his seconds into extremely dangerous positions, giants, werewolves, and Deatheaters, again in the hope of affecting a good out-come for the rest of the WW. Snape, on the other hand, has made clear moral choices: to save Harry's life, to go back to Voldemort, when it would have been much safer at Hogwarts, to provide false veritaserum to Umbridge, etc. The killing of Dumbledore would also become a clear moral choice if it satisfied the three factors stated above. The difference in these two individuals is mostly that Snape does not need to be nice or lovable to be moral. Dumbledore obviously feels that it costs him nothing to be nice and lovable and is more easily seen as being moral. Snape may even be seen to be the more moral of the two in that he has consistently tried to have Harry expelled, which would remove him from Dumbledore's sphere of influence, has tried to severely limit Harry's ability to get into trouble (Snape would never have given Harry an invisibility cloak), and has tried to prevent several things from being set in motion which would put Harry in a dangerous position. Interesting. Morality is not as black and white as you state it. KJ > > > > > > > > > From jane_starr at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 16:44:36 2005 From: jane_starr at yahoo.com (Jane Starr) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:44:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why are wizards so incompetent? /Evil Overlords/ Some... In-Reply-To: <19c.3c461edb.3062e011@aol.com> Message-ID: <20050921164437.65383.qmail@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140599 --- Meliss9900 at aol.com wrote a bunch of good stuff including: > (As for the > AK not leaving a mark . .well that trickle of blood > could be seen as literary license by the authoress). JES: Or the result of the body having fallen from the top of the highest tower at Hogwarts? I know there isn't supposed to be bleeding after death, but is it possible that after a fall of that distance the impact might be some forced out anyway? JES (mostly a lurker but enjoying the discussions) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 17:25:23 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 17:25:23 -0000 Subject: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks Snape is guilty?/Some UV again (LONG) In-Reply-To: <63378ee705092023106b787fcf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140600 > Pippin: > Um, that's what I said. He's not acting rationally. I didn't say he > should be expected to. If you would like me to say, "His > judgement is impaired" rather than, "I'm pretty sure he's > acting like an idiot" -- okay :-) > > But given that he's not acting rationally, is it good judgement > to appoint himself judge, jury and executioner? Alla: I disagree even with such statement, Pippin. Under circumstances I believe he IS acting rationally. Again, he may not know the whole story, but I believe it is completely rationally for him considering the evidence he has to want to avenge Dumbledore's death. JMO, of course. Pippin: > If he only wanted to bring Snape to justice, I wouldn't have > used the word idiot. But he's already tried to crucio him. > That's not justice. Alla: Sure it is not justice, BUT that was happening what ten , fifteen minutes after Dumbledore's death? I think it is a safe assumption to make that he is still in shock. And no, I am not excusing Harry trying to use Crucio at all. Pippin: His last word was that it will be the better for > him and the worse for Snape if Harry catches up with him > --which I take to mean, if Harry finds him before the Aurors > do. Alla: It can mean any number of things, I think. It can mean that Harry will do exactly that - catches Snape and brings him to justice. > Pippin: > If he knows even less about Avada Kedavra than we do, > is it not unwise to pre-empt the judgement of those who > know more? > > If he knows more, if he knows for certain than the > killing curse can throw a living target into the air, > or that the body can assume a peaceful expression or bleed > after death, then JKR is cheating. So far she has been > very careful not to cheat, even to the point of admitting > unintentional red herrings. Alla: What I don't get is why you think that Harry should even think about the effects of Avada? Who knows, maybe after Fake!Moody lesson they were instructed to wrote an essay, which described that Avada could have variety of different effects on the body. Is JKR cheating or is she simply have not shown us ALL effects from Avada Kedavra? As Sherry said Avada in GH blew up the house and you are saying one curse cannot impact the body for it to flew from teh Tower. And peaceful expression? I think it was done for dramatic effect, nothing more, JMO, of course. But most likely I think it is not on Harry's mind and I don't think that it makes his judgment irrational because of that. Pippin: > In fact, she's said that there *is* hope that Snape is not guilty, > and she refused to say that he was evil. Granted she was laughing, > but is the laugh on those who presume innocence until guilt is > proven, or on those who have made up their minds in advance? Alla: You mean like making up the mind that Snape did not really kill Dumbledore even though Dumbledore is dead? I don't think there is anything wrong with making up your mind when you see the evidence to your theory. I absolutely believe that some things on the Tower are much MORE likely to be true than others, even if I will be proven dead wrong. But I absolutely don't think that Harry is acting as an idiot or his judgment is irrational, since I can totally see the evidence he has as VERY rational, even if it will turn out to be wrong later. Lady Indigo wrote: > Most importantly is everything Dumbledore was completely and totally aware > of and how he did nothing to act on it. He knew there was an Unbreakable Vow > involving Snape and Draco. Alla: See, I am not so sure that Snape informed Dumbledore about third provision of the Vow. For better explanation see Severely Siguine essay, but I will just second her sentiments - when did Snape ever agrees during the books that he had been wrong? And he had been wrong a plenty. Of course that is if you consider the thrid provision to be a mistake or manifestation of DADA curse, etc. Because I most certainly do. I think that it all comes to that - if Snape is a good guy and did not know the task,then taking a Vow was a colossal mistake, because as Dan argued once , to me it means that Snape was basically giving Voldemort a blank cheque - to assign him whatever task he sees fit. If Snape KNEW the task, as he says, then well, then ( TO ME) he signed a contract for murder. Lady Indigo: I don't think he's beyond at least guessing the possibility of HOW > Snape is bound to protect Draco, no matter how much he trusts Snape. > > People keep thinking that the best thing for Snape to do was give up his own > life, but why? He's an incredibly valuable spy who needs to renew the faith > of the Death Eaters. Dumbledore has been ailing, arguably even dying (I'm a > pretty solid follower of the 'stoppered death' theory by now), and whatever > power he has, it's known that Harry's the only one who can defeat Voldemort > in the end. Obviously Dumbledore's not going to sacrifice Draco's > well-being. Dumbledore being the one who must die actually seems like a > natural conclusion to me. Alla: Oh, actually that sounds interesting to me. Are you saying that Dumbledore guessed third provision of the Vow, but did not inform Snape about it ( that he knows?) I actually can buy it, as long as it is not Dumbledore ordering Snape to kill him. :-) As to why Snape should give up his own life, well, because I cannot measure human life in usefullness , even if are those the times of war. But even if we are measure Dumbledore's usefullness - if nothing else, he did not finish educating Harry about horcruxes. Dumbledore, the greatest wizard of their time, only managed to get two. Are you arguing that Dumbledore would be that much at ease leaving Harry with the task of finding and destroying FOUR? See, I think that if nothing else Snape should be held responsible for taking Vow in the first place, because he took it on out of his own volition and to say that now Dumbledore should die to bail Snape out of his idiocy ( IMO, only), well, I disagree with it. Now, idea of self-sacrifice, sure, absolutely, I can see Dumbledore sacrificing himself, especially since I think that JKR considers self- sacrifice to be a part of heroic nature. I just don't think that Dumbledore sacrifice should excuse Snape. Lady Indigo: And Snape hardly seems to be gloating, in fact wearing > a look at one point like he's in pain. Alla: Believe me or not, I DO hope you are right. I want Snape to be in a LOT of pain through book 7, I also hope we will get to see at least some of it. And yeah, I will settle for emotional pain, although it would be nice to see anybody beating Snape up. :-) Lady Indigo: > As for the Avada Kedavra, it could very possibly have the potential to make > the struck wizard fly up in the air. We don't know every time it was ever > used, or the levels of power it might hit with, or if any other > circumstances could have come into play. And is it possible the blood could > have come from falling from that great height? Alla: EXACTLY. JMO of course, Alla From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Wed Sep 21 16:08:35 2005 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:08:35 -0000 Subject: Snape- Simply a pawn? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140601 In the endless debates about Snape I don't think I've ever heard the idea that Snape is really just a pawn. Few people seem to have considered the idea that it is Voldemort whose hand may have been moving Narcissa, Bellatrix, Peter, Draco, and Snape. What if Voldemort had at some point realised Snape repentence and, instead of killing him, simply decided that Snape could still be of use to him. Voldemort doesn't only use "bad" people he also uses the "good". Draco is given a mission that is sure to send his mother, Narcissa, into a panic (and that everyone doubts Draco can do). Narcissa then turns to Snape, the only person she "trusts" at Hogwarts. Along with Narcissa is Bellatrix, who happens to be able to hide her thoughts from Snape, who justs happens to serve as bonder. Once the Unbreakable Vow is complete Snape is bound to his task (assuming of course there is no way out of a UV). It's happened before in the HP novels: in CoS Riddle waited on Harry to find his way to the Chamber, in PoA Peter played off an amazing ploy to get himself as secret keeper, and in OotP Harry is used to het the prophecy despite it being easier for Voldemort to get it himself. Snape has been fooled before, by Sirius Black none the less, so it can happen. Isn't it interesting that Peter may have known how the Prank was pulled off? Quick Silver. From dkrasnansky at hotmail.com Wed Sep 21 16:34:26 2005 From: dkrasnansky at hotmail.com (david_krasnansky) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:34:26 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140602 knorte1 wrote: > > ... but I'm wondering why everyone seems so completely convinced > > that DD is really "dead." Amiable Dorsai: > Though it breaks my heart to say it, I think Dumbledore is an ex- > wizard. > > Fawkes sang his lament, and has left Hogwarts. Dumbledore's > portrait has appeared in the Head... mistress's office. The office > recognizes McGonagall's right to occupy it (compare this to the > Umbridge fiasco). As zgirnius points out, the Unbreakable Vow has > not killed Snape. > > Dumbledore is dead. I think it is possible that Dumbledore is not dead. Instead perhaps someone else, who was paying off a debt (a life debt), died in his place. The polyjuice potion could have been used to make this person appear to look like Dumbledore (except for a silver hand) controlled by an Imperious to do and say what a hidden (or perhaps in another guise, spiders come to mind) Dumbledore commands. And Dumbledore could use the same polyjuice potion to appear as that person. Later the person need not to be alive, only that a sufficient amount of their hair is saved. The biggest problem with the remaining horcrux is not only where they are but what they are and one of the Horcrux has not yet been identified by Dumbledore. Getting close to Voldemort would give Dumbledore an opportunity to learn the identity of this last Horcrux. Using the polyjuice to appear as someone Voldemort has no fear of would give Dumbledore this chance. Pehaps Voldemort would even instruct the disguised Dumbledore to rehide the remaining Horcrux. Through the earlier books the adults tried to control Harry and his friends while the adults attempted to handle the situation. I think they have learned from that mistake, and instead are helping Harry and his friends act as a diversion while they, Dumbledore and "the one who approaches" (Snape), take out Voldemort. What I don't like about this theory is that it is simply a continuation of book six. It doesn't add anything new, and JKR always adds something new. For instance how will the mirror be used, what will come of the dementors breeding, what is in the locked room in the MOM, etc? Dave From lealess at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 19:21:29 2005 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 19:21:29 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140603 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "david_krasnansky" wrote: > knorte1 wrote: > > > ... but I'm wondering why everyone seems so completely > > > convinced that DD is really "dead." > > Amiable Dorsai: > > Though it breaks my heart to say it, I think Dumbledore is an ex- > > wizard. > > > > Fawkes sang his lament, and has left Hogwarts. Dumbledore's > > portrait has appeared in the Head... mistress's office. The > > office recognizes McGonagall's right to occupy it (compare this > > to the Umbridge fiasco). As zgirnius points out, the Unbreakable > > Vow has not killed Snape. > > > > Dumbledore is dead. > > > > I think it is possible that Dumbledore is not dead. Instead > perhaps someone else, who was paying off a debt (a life debt), died > in his place. > I think Dumbledore is dead, but Snape did not kill him. Dumbledore probably began dying after he secured the ring horcrux, but certainly after he drank the potion in the cave. When Snape sent his "curse," Dumbledore might have just "given up the ghost" and launched himself into the next great adventure, voluntarily and with great relief. If the object of the Vow is dead, perhaps the Vow is voided. So, am I delusional? The only other wizard who anticipated death and planned for it, that I can think of, was Nicolas Flamel... or maybe Merope Gaunt... or maybe RAB. lealess From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Sep 21 19:28:29 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 19:28:29 -0000 Subject: Snape's future (Was: Snape's other books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140604 Carol wrote: > I think JKR plans to give Snape an important role (one crucial >scene, at least) in Book 7, but how can she keep him safe and alive >till then? > > Does anyone have any ideas (at least remotely supportable by canon >so we won't be sent to OTChatter by the Elvses) as to what Snape is > likely to do next (assuming that he's not immediately killed or sent > to Azkaban, in which case his fate is a nonissue)? > > Carol, really wondering how JKR can pull off Snape's survival, which > is crucial to his confrontation with Harry and to his redemption (if > it happens) Potioncat: I began thinking of these questions along with an old idea of father figures and the boy-hero going alone. I was sure I'd read something about that and I went looking. I found this at Quick Quotes: Anelli, Melissa and Emerson Spartz. "The Leaky Cauldron and MuggleNet interview Joanne Kathleen Rowling: Part One," The Leaky Cauldron, 16 July 2005 MA: OK, big big big book six question. Is Snape evil? >snip< JKR: Well, okay, I'm obviously ? Harry-Snape is now as personal, if not more so, than Harry-Voldemort. I can't answer that question because it's a spoiler, isn't it, whatever I say, and obviously, it has such a huge impact on what will happen when they meet again that I can't. And let's face it, it's going to launch 10,000 theories and I'm going to get a big kick out of reading them so [laughs] I'm evil but I just like the theories, I love the theories. Potioncat: I was looking for a different quote. Not only do I forget what I've read, I remember things I haven't read! Whether or not Snape is evil has a huge impact on what will happen when they meet again. Now, that's sort of interesting?when they meet again. They are going to meet again. Which way will it go, evil or good? What would happen if DDM!Snape met Harry? What would happen if Evil!Snape met Harry? And of course, whether or not he's evil will determine what he's doing "now". But I was actually looking for a quote from JKR saying she had to kill DD because the boy-hero had to go on alone. I was thinking about a thread from "not so long ago but I can't find" about Harry's collection of partial fathers. No one character fills in as a father figure, but several add up to a sort of father. Arthur, Molly and Lupin may have had a role, but I don't think so. DD was (I think) the nurturing, tolerant portion of a father; Snape was the rule enforcing, limit setting part of a father; and Sirius was the was the . (I have a bias. I cannot imagine Sirius as a father so I don't remember what his role was. I fully understand and accept those who have a bias against Snape as a father figure.) But, my point is, all three of them are gone. She's killed off two and effectively banished a third. I think this was touched on in another thread that may still be running. I'm not asking will Snape die? But isn't it interesting that he didn't die? I'm thinking more along the lines of what his role will be if he is a partial father figure in the next book. How would it apply to the boy hero? Or has that role changed and Snape will take on a new one? Many threads over the years have assigned Snape a role specific to one book, and which changes in another. Something to think about anyway. Potioncat From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 19:40:54 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 19:40:54 -0000 Subject: Snape's future (Was: Snape's other books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140605 Potioncat: > (I have a bias. I cannot imagine Sirius as a father so I don't > remember what his role was. I fully understand and accept those who > have a bias against Snape as a father figure.) Alla: LOLOL! Me, me, me. Potioncat: > But, my point is, all three of them are gone. She's killed off > two > and effectively banished a third. I think this was touched on in > another thread that may still be running. > > I'm not asking will Snape die? But isn't it interesting that he > didn't die? I'm thinking more along the lines of what his role will > be if he is a partial father figure in the next book. How would it > apply to the boy hero? Or has that role changed and Snape will take > on a new one? Many threads over the years have assigned Snape a role > specific to one book, and which changes in another. Alla: Hmmm. Maybe it is not answering your point much, but... I don't have a book with me right now, but when Harry reflects about his destiny at the end, isn't he saying that all his protectors are now gone - his parents, Headmaster, his Godfather? ( I am paraphrasing but I think he does call them protectors) and this is his fight now. I confess, it was immensely satisfying to me to read that those people are called protectors and Snape is not there. Now, if it is Harry's POV talking and he does not include Snape there as his protector, because he does not realise that it is the truth, it is one thing, but I would love if this is JKR talks. Another thing - I think that Snape will die too, if he will be Harry's protector at the end, and if he does not, then he may live ... or not. I have to say that I do share Lupinlore's thought that JKR is a bit too set on " hero journey" formula. I don't think that the story would have been less interesting if Harry would have "father figure" left to help him out a bit - not in doing his job, because I am pretty sure that this is up to Harry now, but by giving emotional support. And of course I would much rather see Dumbledore or Sirius alive for that purpose. JMO of course, Alla. From annemehr at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 20:26:19 2005 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 20:26:19 -0000 Subject: JKR quote re DD dying Was:Re: Snape's future In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140606 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: Potioncat: > But I was actually looking for a quote from JKR saying she had to > kill DD because the boy-hero had to go on alone. I was thinking about > a thread from "not so long ago but I can't find" about > Harry's > collection of partial fathers. No one character fills in as a father > figure, but several add up to a sort of father. Annemehr: This must be the part you were looking for; it's in part III of the interview: ================================================================== ES: I remember actually putting a poll up on MuggleNet asking people if they thought [DD] was going to bite it. JKR: And what was the result? That's really interesting. ES: The majority thought he was going to die in book six ? well, six or seven. Most thought it was going to be in seven. JKR: Really. Yeah. ES: It was probably 65/35, but definitely, most thought he was going to die. JKR: Yeah, well, I think if you take a step back, in the genre of writing that I'm working in, almost always the hero must go on alone. That's the way it is, we all know that, so the question is when and how, isn't it, if you know anything about the construction of that kind of plot. ES: The wise old wizard with the beard always dies. JKR: Well, that's basically what I'm saying, yes. ================================================================= Annemehr again: Which just makes me think "too much Star Wars!" I remember the father figure thread, but durned if I could find it. I looked in other groups, thinking it may have been cross-posted, but no luck. ~Annemehr From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 20:52:23 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 20:52:23 -0000 Subject: Snape vs Wormtail - Life Debt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140607 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002" wrote: > I had taken a sabbatical from the Snape Good/Evil debate for the last > month or so as the two sides had argued themselves to a standstill. > > However, I return ready to face Alla and friends with some new > evidence to suggest Snape is fighting for good. Alla: MAHAHAHA! You got tired way too soon, I have to say. Oh maybe I am way too wierd, since pretty much everybody who started doing those Snape sessions with me IS tired of them by now and I am still not, well for the most part anyway. :-) Anyways, I did miss you. So, welcome back. Brothergib: So it appears that someone can CHOOSE to ignore a life debt, as > Pettigrew does. The deep magic that DD talked about does NOT > automatically prevent an individual under a life debt from causing > harm to the object of the life debt. Alla: Is it clear though that someone can choose to ignore Life debt? We have Peter in GoF drawing blood from Harry, true, but we also have Peter asking Voldie to use someone else other than Harry. Granted, he is not very ... persistent, in protecting Harry, should I say, BUT he tries, sort of, so I think it is plausible to assume that some sort of actions may follow if you don't honor the Life debt. Those actions may not be automatic - as if you fail to protect the person, you die, but some sort of consequences may still follow, IMO. Besides, JKR hinted rather heavily that Peter's life debt WILL come back into play later, so maybe he did not ignore it yet? Brothergib: > If we consider Snape's actions. Firstly his life debt was not owed to > Harry, it was owed to James. And secondly it is quite apparent that > Snape could have chosen to ignore this debt. However, he did not. > Despite his obvious loathing of James + Harry, he felt honour bound > to protect Harry. He does the honourable thing!! Alla: This is one of the interpretations - that he does the honorable thing, the one I sort of shared prior to OOP. Another one would be that his life debt get transferred to Harry ( someone put nice theory about it) and he IS obligated to protect harry or something will happen to him. :-) Brothergib: > If we also consider Snape & DD in HBP, DD ends their conversation > with the fact that Snape had given his word. Honourable people will > always place great importance on carrying out any > promises/commitments they have made. Alla: Sure, honourable people do exactly that. It is just that to me whether Snape IS an honourable person is open to very wide interpretation. :-) JMO, Alla From sweety12783 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 20:13:41 2005 From: sweety12783 at yahoo.com (Nina Baker) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:13:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dumbledore's Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050921201341.55430.qmail@web30213.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140608 Dave: I think it is possible that Dumbledore is not dead. Instead perhaps someone else, who was paying off a debt (a life debt), died in his place. The polyjuice potion could have been used to make this person appear to look like Dumbledore (except for a silver hand) controlled by an Imperious to do and say what a hidden (or perhaps in another guise, spiders come to mind) Dumbledore commands. And Dumbledore could use the same polyjuice potion to appear as that person. Later the person need not to be alive, only that a sufficient amount of their hair is saved. sweety12783: I think that if it was not Dumbledore than it might have been PP. I can not think why JKR would put him in the chapter "Spinner's End" and not mention him again in the entire book unless she may be referring to him at a later point. But there is also other evidence that it may be PP. For instance when "DD" was drinking the potion containing the hocrux he started to scream with pain "make it stop, make it stop" (just paraphrasing) this reminded me of the time in GoF when PP cut off his hand and was wimpering in agony. I think that the potion would make the drinker relive horrible memories. Next, "DD" also started to scream "Don't kill them kill me" (again paraphrasing) this makes me think that PP was there the night Lily and James was killed and after he was forced to give voldermont the info, pleaded with LV not to kill them. I remember in PoA when PP said when talking about LV, "you have no idea the weapon he possess." Lastly, I have been wondering about DD injured right hand for a long time. I think that if polyjuice potion was taken by PP it would not transform the silver hand he got from LV. Remember what hermione said in CoS "its only for human transformation" so the hand made of silver would not transform correctly leaving a dead, burned hand. this is just a hypothesis but you never know with JKR **sweety12783** From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Wed Sep 21 21:35:29 2005 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (Jazmyn Concolor) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:35:29 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape- Simply a pawn? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4331D221.6060000@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140609 quick_silver71 wrote: >In the endless debates about Snape I don't think I've ever heard the >idea that Snape is really just a pawn. Few people seem to have >considered the idea that it is Voldemort whose hand may have been >moving Narcissa, Bellatrix, Peter, Draco, and Snape. > >What if Voldemort had at some point realised Snape repentence and, >instead of killing him, simply decided that Snape could still be of >use to him. Voldemort doesn't only use "bad" people he also uses >the "good". > >Draco is given a mission that is sure to send his mother, Narcissa, >into a panic (and that everyone doubts Draco can do). Narcissa then >turns to Snape, the only person she "trusts" at Hogwarts. Along with >Narcissa is Bellatrix, who happens to be able to hide her thoughts >from Snape, who justs happens to serve as bonder. Once the >Unbreakable Vow is complete Snape is bound to his task (assuming of >course there is no way out of a UV). > >It's happened before in the HP novels: in CoS Riddle waited on Harry >to find his way to the Chamber, in PoA Peter played off an amazing >ploy to get himself as secret keeper, and in OotP Harry is used to >het the prophecy despite it being easier for Voldemort to get it >himself. Snape has been fooled before, by Sirius Black none the >less, so it can happen. Isn't it interesting that Peter may have >known how the Prank was pulled off? > > >Quick Silver. > > > > I proposed something like this early on and was told it was 'too contrived'. I still believe that Snape was just a pawn and was maneuvered into this situation by Voldemort (and others) and left with no choice in the matter. Voldemort could not just ask Snape to kill Dumbledore directly, that would look cowardly to the rest of the DEs and he would lose standing in the DE's eyes, causing them to question who is really more powerful... BUT, if he gives Draco the job, it only looks like he is sending Draco on a suicide mission to punish Lucius. Knowing that Narcissa would turn to Snape for help, he just has Bella tag along after her and goad Snape into taking the oath to 'prove his loyalty' or whatever. Its clear that Voldemort to that point had a certain amount of distrust for Snape or why would he have Peter living with him to spy on him? Unless Voldemort simply got tired of having Peter around. But remember, Voldemort trusts noone at all and has noone 'close' that he would ever confide all his plans to, so its not likely that he would admit he set Snape up to anyone. He knew Snape was in the perfect position to assassinate Dumbledore, but could not just order him to go do it. He had to manipulate him into doing it to protect Draco. He is not stupid and knew Snape was a double agent. Even Draco knew that. However, Snape is a powerful wizard and too great a talent to get rid of, so he used him like a tool. Now that the tool has done its work, what will Voldemort do with the tool now? Perhaps hold Draco captive and threaten to kill him anytime he wants Snape to do something? Using Draco as a leash to keep Snape doing his dirty work? Very likely. Snape knows he is being used to, for he is not a stupid man. When the chance to avenge himself against Voldemort comes, I suspect Snape will turn on him. And I suspect that Voldemort might keep Snape off doing DE chores just to try and not give him the chance to turn on him. Because I don't think for a minute that Voldemort will trust Snape as far as he can throw him. Jazmyn From strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca Wed Sep 21 21:44:23 2005 From: strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca (strawberryshaunie) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 21:44:23 -0000 Subject: Snape's AK Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140610 Pippin said: "If [harry] knows more, if he knows for certain than the killing curse can throw a living target into the air, or that the body can assume a peaceful expression or bleed after death, then JKR is cheating. So far she has been very careful not to cheat, even to the point of admitting unintentional red herrings." I noticed something while reading CoS that doesn't seem to have been pointed out. In the duelling Club scene, Snape uses Expelliarmus on Lockhart, *blasting him off his feet* (and into the air, slamming him into a tapestry or some such, if I'm remembering correctly). At the time, it seemed a demonstration of Snape's power: it seems a mere disarming spell, performed with enough drive, perhaps enough magical power behind it is enough to blast a foe away. This is almost exactly like Snape's AK in the tower situation. I think this is evidence that the AK was legit. A spell can produce extra effects, whether it's because of the magical power of the spell caster, or the level of concentration on the three D's or some other side effect that has yet to be explained. From lolita_ns at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 21:58:58 2005 From: lolita_ns at yahoo.com (lolita_ns) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 21:58:58 -0000 Subject: That Fateful Night at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140611 Darqali: "Who > alerted the whole WW of the events at Godric's Hollow?" One thinks > there must have been someone else there. The specifics of the event > were broadcast almost *immediately* .... hence, the celebrations. Lolita: I posted a couple of sentences on this a week or so ago. It is, in fact, quite simple. I believe that Snape notified Dumbledore the moment his dark mark disappeared (and since both of them were probably at Hogwarts, at the time, it would have only taken a couple of minutes, maybe even less for SS to reach DD), and then the word spread from there (I do not believe, however, that neither Dumbledore nor Snape were playing broadcasting agency - it was probably Hagrid's doing. If you tell one, or two people, some extremely important and interesting news, then they will tell a couple more people each... - you know how it goes). In short: Snape notices his dark mark is gone (probably feels it petering away, or being stripped away - whatever the way the magic performed on his arm dissolves - in any case, I think he notices it during the process itself, and it is probably not an enjoyable experience). Both he and DD realise that sth must have happened to LV. Somehow, DD is aware of the Potters' location (I will elaborate on this later on, but let's just say now that I think it was because the Caster - Lily - had died), and sends Hagrid to pick up Harry, while he goes God-knows-where, maybe MoM, maybe somewhere else... In the meanwhile, Hagrid tells McGonagall what has happened, maybe he mentions it in passing to somebody else, and there you have it - by word of mouth, the news has spread in no time. Darqali: > As for how Dumbledore knew where the Potters were, and/or how he told > Hagrid to go there, that is not a problem to me. The fact that the > Potters were in hiding does not mean *no one* knew where they were, > any more than the fact that Grimould Place was hidden meant that "no > one" knew where it was, nor how to get there. *Several people* {or > even *many people*} many have known the Potter's location, just as > *many people* (including under-age school children; including Snape) > knew and could go to Grimould Place .... But they could not *reveal* > that location to LV or his supporters because of the charm placed > upon the secret. I assume Dumbledore knew the Potter's location. > Dumbledore could have gone to the Potters at any time. And Hagrid may > also have known; he was, I blieve, in the OOTP. > In any event, with the Potter's death, the secret was broken and so > even if *only* Dumbledore and a handful of others {such as Sirius and > Lupin} knew, Dumbledore could have sent a Hagrid who *didn't* know to > Godric's Hollow. There was no longer a secret to keep. Lolita: Yes, but you forget that neither DD nor Lupin knew of the switch between Pettigrew and Black. They both believed that Sirius had betrayed the Potters (and this goes without question, because, had either of them known, they would have never ever let Sirius rot in Azkaban for 12 years - so I think it is safe to presume that literaly *no one* knew of the switch). Since neither Lupin nor DD knew that the true Secret Keeper was Pettigrew, I think it is also safe to postulate that Pettigrew did not reveal the Potters' whereabouts to either of them. Ergo: neither DD nor Lupin knew the location. (Someone has mentioned that Pettigrew may have given the location to DD by means of a note written in disguised handwriting, but I tend to disagree. First, I rather think that DD would have checked the note for any signs of trechery. Second, what channels of communication could Pettigrew use? Owls, you'll say. But owls were probably checked during VW 1 too, and anyway, I don't think that anyone would have trusted any owl with such an important message. Even Floo connection could have been intercepted. The only solution, as I see it, is for Pettigrew to have given DD the secret in person, in private. But even if Pettigrew had somehow accomplished this, I think that, had DD known of the location, he would have probably put - unbeknownst to the Potters; he is, after all, the guy who doesn't think it necessary to reveal the details of his master plans until the last moment possible - some sort of magical protection in the surroundings of the Potters' home, if only sth to alert him to LV's presence, so that he could barge in and save the day, or at least take Harry away. So, no, I don't think that DD knew.) And as far as I remember, Sirius says, in PoA, that he even suspected Lupin of being the spy, therefore, it seems plausible that James thought so too, so there was no way that he would have let Peter tell the secret to *Lupin*. Thus, it is safe to write Lupin off as one of the people who knew. As for DD... He didn't know of the switch, so it is reasonable to say that he was most definitely *not* the one who did the casting of the Fidelius (Had he been the caster, he would have known that Pettigrew was the Secret Keeper, and, consequently, would have vouched for Sirius and kept him out of Azkaban). And, apart from the things that I have already mentioned with regards to DD knowing or not knowing the secret, given the fact that the Potters have refused DD's offer to be their Secret Keeper, it goes to say that they would have probably not let him in on the secret at all. And why did they refuse, I wonder? Maybe because they felt ashamed because they have tricked him during their school days about their Animagi skills... Maybe there was something else. But, in any case, I don't think that DD made absolutely certain that the Potters *really* knew of the danger they put themselves in by refusing to take him as their Secret Keeper. I really *do* think that a powerful Legilimens like LV could have easily pried the Secret out of both Sirius and Pettigrew. However, DD knew that LV would have much difficulty in capturing *him*, and even if he had somehow managed it, he probably couldn't have pried the secret out of *Dumbledore* (who is, if not *superb*, then at least an accomplished Occlumens, which can be concluded from the fact that Sirius wonders why DD himself didn't teach Harry Occlumency - and if he was able to teach it, then he probably knew *something* of that 'obcure branch of magic.'). So, I really think that the mistake *was* DD's, not James's, Lily's and Sirius's. They probably didn't know anything about either Legilimency or Occlumency, and DD probably didn't explain it to them - otherwise, they would have not refused his offer. OTOH, I think that you are right in that Sirius probably knew of the location. If you've (noy *you* yourself, but an indefinite *you*, like *one* :)) read PoA carefully, you have concluded that Sirius made an arrangement to visit with Peter that night. On finding him gone, he suspected that sth was wrong, and went to the Potters, *without knowing that anything had happened*. So, he knew. Peter knew. That's it, IMO. Darqali: > In any event, with the Potter's death, the secret was broken and so > even if *only* Dumbledore and a handful of others {such as Sirius and > Lupin} knew, Dumbledore could have sent a Hagrid who *didn't* know to > Godric's Hollow. There was no longer a secret to keep. Lolita: I still have problems with that. From Flitwick's statements in the 3 Broomsticks, one can conclude that the Secret is kept within a *living soul*. That would imply that the secret gets outed with the death of its Keeper. Personally, I think this would be a rather stupid thing, since all it would take would be for the one after the secret to find the Secret Kepper and kill him/her. So, who is this 'living soul' then? From everything we have been shown, I can only conclude that this refers to the Caster of the spell. When the Caster dies, the Secret gets outed (we can conclude this much with regards to other spells, i.e., the ones that Harry was under in the scene of DD's death). That would explain how everyone was able to find the Potters' home (Hagrid, MoM, Muggles...). I don't agree with the idea that, since the house was destroyed, there was no secret left, for I believe that the charm was not cast upon the mere building, but on the *location the Potters were*. It doesn't matter that the walls had crumpled and the house was destroyed. Both the Potter's bodies and Harry were still there, among the ruins. That was still their *location*. And if you tell me that the secret got outed with the *death* of the Potters, I tell you that there was still one Potter left alive - Harry. The spell was not cast only for Lily and James, it was cast for the whole family. I would find your reasoning plausible had the whole family died. Since one of them remained alive, the secret should have still protected him. Plus, if Pettigrew was indeed there, the destroying of the house was probably his doing, and not a side-effect of the AK. (The AK doesn't leave a trace - the Riddles' bodies and DD looked as if scared to death and asleep, respectively. It does tend to destroy inanimate objects when it hits them, though, but I don't think that there was much ricocheting in GH - no matter how bright he was, James was still a 20sth year-old against LV in his prime; it doesn't seem as if LV had much trouble killing him (they probably threw a couple of curses each before LV AKed James, although I admit that this is pure speculation on my part), and the same goes for Lily - she didn't duel, she just asked LV to kill her instead of Harry - and we saw that much in GoF: Lily exited LV's wand and was immediately followed by James, there were no curses in between.) Also, from what we have seen, Pettigrew seems like somebody who enjoys this kind of hurly- burly - he blew up the street with all those Muggles in it, and in the Pensieve scene he was, as Sirius (or was it James?) said, about to wet himself in glee while he was looking at James's playing with the Snitch and Snape's hanging upside-down. So, if Pettigrew knew that the Secret would get outed with the destruction of the house (and I repeat that I don't agree with it), why would he destroy the house? So that the Secret gets outed? I don't think so. He was probably either just doing it for the kicks or in order to destroy the traces of the intended Horcrux set-up (which is a way long and complicated issue to be dealt with here, so it would have to wait for another post). In any case, we will find out soon enough (in a couple of years :) ) - the moment that Harry steps on the ruins of his early home. Mind you, regarding the whole Fidelius issue, I still tend to believe that the best course of action would have been for one of the Potters to be their own Secret Keeper - what better way to make sure that the secret won't get outed than to keep it to yourself? Lily was probably the one who cast the spell. Why wasn't James made the Secret Keeper? Somebody said that maybe there are some side effects to being your own Secret Keeper, and that DD didn't spend much time in 12 GP because of that. I don't think so. I think he spent so little time there because he was way too busy to stay there - and frankly, why would he? There was nothing going on there. He went there occasionaly, attended the meetings... That's it. Why would they need him? To help the children cleaning the house? To keep Sirius company? I don't think so. Darqali: > Aside: recently Hagrid's first speech to Harry about his parents was > recounted, and again I note Hagrid says James was Head Boy. The > sequence given elsewhere is that students are selected as Prefects in > their 5 th year, and then Head Boy and Girl are chosen from among the > Prefects in their final year. Yet we know Lupin was Prefect, not > James. So how did James become Head Boy, seeing he was not first a > Prefect? Lolita: Well, Hagrid was obviously wrong. Rowling herself said - in an interview, or a chat, or sth, I don't know where or when exactly, but I am absolutely certain that I've read it somewhere - that you do not have to be a Prefect in order to become a Head Boy. OTOH, seeing James' idiotic behaviour in the Pensieve, I wonder just how he became Head Boy. It had probably something to do with the Werewolf incident, after which event James probably thought things over and improved his behaviour (enough to make Evans go out with him :)). The Werewolf incident probably happened a few days after the Pensieve scene (Lupin looked sickly in it, and Snape said that Sirius was 16 when it happened, also, the Werewolf incident was probably the climax of the animosity between the Marauders and Snape, and the scene we have witnessed seemed one step short of such climax). So, James saved Snape - the ultimate idiot, in his opinion - because it was the right thing to do. This happened, according to my reasoning, at the end of their 5th year. Thus, James had at least part of the summer holiday to think things through and to realise that he and Sirius have really stepped way over the line. He probably calmed down a bit during his sixth year, and he probably persuaded Sirius to take a break too. DD was pleased, and rewarded him with a badge the following year. And I guess that Snape was beyond livid because of that. But, c'est la vie. Cheers, Lolita. From msbeadsley at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 22:39:38 2005 From: msbeadsley at yahoo.com (msbeadsley) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 22:39:38 -0000 Subject: Conflict, imposition, and morality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140612 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > Sandy: > *(snip)* > > It seems to me Snape stopped being quite so > > respectful during the conversation Hagrid > > overheard; is that a clue? > > I think it might be, if you're talking about moral/behavioral codes. > What one does in private can be different than what one does in > public. In public, one presents a united front, toward students if > one is a teacher, toward neighbors if one is part of a family. > Showing discord or falling apart publicly is 'airing dirty linen in > public' and is discouraged. That they took their discussion to a > place where even the portraits couldn't overhear, may indicate > something along these lines. And, since one is a spy and the other > is his superior in a more military sense, it makes even more sense > not to go airing their differences publicly. I meant, was it a clue in regards to Snape's attitude about Dumbledore changing, in preparation for the events on the Tower? I wish I had a Time Turner and could go and buy book 7 and just know already, dang it! We have little experience with conversations between Snape and Dumbledore that have to do with the Order or Voldemort; they were simply in the habit of being discreet, probably because some of what they talked about could have cost lives if it had been revealed. > Since religion has been brought in, I don't feel too bad in > furthering it. *g* I've been reading along here, and it seems to > me that Snape is behaving much like the Good Brother in the parable > of the Prodigal Son. Correct me if I'm wrong, as it's been a while since I delved into the scriptures, but I don't think The Good Brother ever went off and joined a bunch of sheep stealers or pillagers or whatever the equivalent might have been back then. Snape, IMO, is closer TO the prodigal than the older brother. (And his return to good and Dumbledore might have been celebrated more thoroughly if people hadn't been busy mourning James and Lily...) > The way that parable is usually taught, the older > brother who did no wrong, is considered to be petty at the least for > feeling steamed that his younger brother, who took his inheritance, > blew it, practically gave their father 'the finger' when he left, is > welcomed back with open arms and the killing of an animal apparently > intended for celebration. While the good brother has continued on > the family farm, respected their father, done his duty, not shamed > the family name, and so forth, and got no obvious reward. He > certainly wasn't feted! The Good Brother was painted as at fault for his lack of forbearance and his covetousness, IMO and recollection. While Snape may have had the same feelings, overall this strikes me as lacking resonance when applied to Snape. The Good Brother resented that following the rules, as he had been taught had value, didn't pay off with the sort of dividend his brother got for coming home after having caused the old man grief and suffering. > Snape insisting that Harry work with the > incident cards for his detention, so he could see how bad his father > and the other Marauders were, I think, supports this sort of > reading. If Snape was rubbing Harry's nose in his father and company's trespasses again with the intent of redundantly showing Harry how awful many of the people who have loved him were as adolescents, then I am contemptuous of him for it (and I just don't need any more reasons to hold Snape in contempt). > The parable goes on to make the point that the father, being a > father, is just plain glad that his son, who may well have been dead > since he had no contact with his family for some time, is back. It > suggests that the good son (no, I haven't seen that movie) is > *wrong* not to be happy that his father is happy. And that's valid, > too. The parable is meant to draw a parallel between the Prodigal Son and those children of God who fall away from observance of His laws. It is meant, in all the interpretations I'm aware of, to act as an illustration that God holds out a carrot, not a stick. That every soul, no matter the transgressions, is precious to God and that He aches to have each sinner repent and come home. (I was raised So. Baptist; can you tell? ) The Elder Son is the part of the parable which warns off those who follow the rules from getting smug, self-congratulatory, envious and/or resentful or punitive (echoed in "forgive us our trespasses as we...") about those who don't. In that sense it works for me, for I can easily see all of those in Snape. But the idea that he would see himself as the "sinless" one makes me a little sick, actually. > But, the good brother isn't wrong in feeling put out, either. I > think any of us could sympathize, if the parable wasn't meant to > show something totally different. Good brother has been good all > along, yet he's pushed aside because the bad brother comes crawling > home. Snape is pushed aside, told not to tell about Lupin's 'furry > little problem' even though it nearly got him killed. He's put into > danger by spying, while every effort was made to keep James and his > family safe. He's done what he was expected to do, kept to the > rules, while Harry has broken them all over creation - one of those > kids who get away with murder while other kids would be punished. > And, he's celebrated, James is well-liked, while Snape, doing what > he's supposed to do, is pretty much ignored unless it's to send him > into more danger. As if his life isn't as valuable or desired as > Harry's or James's. Snape is the only one properly to blame for the devaluation of his life once he joined the DE. The Snape who was warned off telling Lupin's secret was a pre-fall Snape, AFAWK, a very different individual, in spite of the fact that we have seen that even then he grasped after acclaim and respect by hunting up and pointing out others' shortcomings instead of exerting himself to excel and earn his laurels more honestly; perhaps he hasn't/hadn't the self-esteem to believe he can/could earn points honestly or any role models in his life to suggest the possibility. I absolutely think that the series is going to conclude as follows: Harry = hero/protagonist Voldemort = antagonist Snape = anti-hero (heh, pretty literally...but *very* anti-antagonist) Snape eventually figured out he really did want to "do the right thing"--just this side of too late; he never had an accessible role model for "good" until after he'd gone "bad" and so was left with no choice but to spend the rest of his life backpedalling. (Now you have me thinking of Snape as prodigal, and it's working for me SO much better than the other way.) > And, all this talk about a twenty year old grudge, I do stop and > think, it isn't twenty years old. It's as recent as the last DE > meeting Snape attended, definitely as recent as the end of GoF. The > Order protects James and Harry; the Order throws Snape to the lions. The Order *could* protect James (although it failed before long) because James never went off and sold his soul to the bad guys! The Order protects Harry because its members have come to care for him and because he may be their last, best hope for victory, as well as because it's the right thing to do. Everything I remember says that Snape *volunteered* to turn spy in the wake of his sea change. There is no canon for anyone "throwing" him anywhere, and if that is how he feels, then he has yet one more symptom of lagging adolescence showing. IMO. Poor ickle Snape is never going to work for me any better than poor ickle Dudley or poor ickle Draco; I am not angelic enough to fight off the satisfaction I feel at seeing (at least literary constructs) bullies get some comeuppance. (And before anyone plunges fingers to keyboards in haste to remind me of MWPP, let me just add that there's never a second chance to make a first impression. And MWPP tormented a peer, not an inferior.) The only way this "Good Brother" thing works for me is if the last book makes it clear that Snape's initial decision to join the Death Eaters was part of an infiltration plan that far back. Not very likely, IMO. Sandy aka msbeadsley, still goggling at the notion of Snape as the Good Son... From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Sep 22 00:00:44 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:00:44 -0000 Subject: The Powerful Slytherin (Re: Snape/Harry coincidence?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140613 > Betsy Hp: > The parallel between Snape and Harry is fascinating to me too. > Something I noticed is that when Harry goes down to the lake at the > end of OotP, feeling alone and depressed, he sits "behind a tangle > of shrubs" (scholastic hardback p.855). Which echoed, to my mind, > with young Severus sitting "in the dense shadows of a clump of > bushes" (ibid p.644) in the pensieve scene. It's not an exact match > wording wise, but there's still a picture of two fifth year boys, > notably different from their peers, mirroring each other at this > spot by the lake. Jen: I finally got back to this one, Betsy! Your comments really made me think about this Snape/Harry parallel and also Slytherins in general. I could be reading too much into HBP, but while the core of the story was Riddle's history and the Horcruxes, woven into the background was the subtle story of Harry's struggle with his Slytherin tendencies and lessons learned from very unlikely sources. First and least complicated was his relationship with Slughorn, a person he initally felt repulsed by but later tried to impress and manipulate in equal measure. Next was the return of Nemesis!Draco, mostly absent in GOF & OOTP, relegated to the backgound where his dastardly deeds consisted of minor trouble. Then of course Snape, but in the form of boy-Snape this time, disguised as the Half-Blood Prince for good measure. The funny thing about these Slytherins is they all helped Harry move forward on his quest. Slughorn provided the Horcrux memory of course, but he also indirectly helped Harry discover his ability to get what he needs from people using his "best efforts, considerable ingenuity, & depths of cunning" to paraphrase Dumbledore (chap. 20, p. 428). Slughorn also gave a personal gift to Harry, the first person to actually talk about Lily as a *person* instead of telling him for the umpteenth time Harry has Lily's eyes or Lily sacrificed her life for him or ignoring Lily to berate/glorify James. Draco's contribution was a little less obvious, given he was working on killing Dumbledore and bringing the DE's into Hogwarts . On the face of it, his actions thwarted Harry, yet Harry learned something very valuable from watching Draco over the year. Remember the determination Harry felt at the funeral, the sense of purpose that lead him to reject everything except destroying the Horcruxes, even if it meant leaving his only real Home? I found that passion *remarkably* similar to the passion driving Draco, and really the first time Harry has shown himself capable of blocking extraneous information and directing most of his energy toward destroying Voldemort. I'm not saying Harry saw this passion in Draco and decided it was a really cool trait he needed for himself. Rather, a shift occurred over the course of the year, something Harry was only vaguely aware of. He was completely right Draco was up to no good, but he didn't realize part of his obsession was watching Draco move on without him. Draco gave up his boyhood pursuits--Quidditch, harassing Harry, being Snape's favorite--to take on a man's job. Even Dumbledore, horrified the DE's were at Hogwarts, was curious how Draco could accomplish something *no one* could accomplish up to that point. Over the course of the year under Harry's watchful eye, Draco rejected the familiar by pushing Snape away & dropping the charade of being a student; Draco understood how high the stakes were while Harry was still feeling ensconsed in Dumbledore's protection and the familiar pattern of friendships. Seeing Draco crying in the bathroom & casting the Sectumsempra jolted Harry out of his routine, but even then, Snape saved him from his consequences. Everything changed for Harry the night of the cave and tower, though. Ultimately, both boys gave up the need for father figures altogether and grew into the next generation of men taking sides in another painful war. Then there's this tiny problem, or maybe a huge obstacle, called Snape. As much as Harry was able to marshall his energy, and draw strength from the fake locket, his anger was still partially stoked by Snape. True, Harry called him a murderer and rejected him and his potions book as evil. Deep down, though, Harry was mightily confused about his reaction to the HBP or he would have destroyed that potions book straightaway. What does Harry need to learn from Snape? For it seems inevitable to me this will be the final area of growth for Harry in defeating Voldemort. We can safely say Harry won't be saving his own skin anytime soon, and as much as Snape believes it's true, *we* know Harry doesn't need to close his mind as much as he needs to open his heart. I think the one Slytherin trait Harry is lacking at the moment is coming to terms with the idea of power. In fact, Harry is much more like the Slytherins in this respect than a Gryffindor. What could be more powerful and ambitious than preparing to defeat the greatest dark wizard ever?!? He's biased against the idea of holding power after he meets Voldemort in PS, then when introduced to the likes of Barty Crouch Sr., Umbridge and others who abuse their power. But the truth is, Harry is seeking power over his enemies every time he casts a dark magic spell! When he defies Scrimgeour and the MOM, and takes his place beside Dumbledore, he's merely choosing which powerful leader to attach himself to. And of course he continues to reject and minimize the power within himself, the key to Voldemort's defeat. Somehow Harry will have to move from feeling like an underage, unqualified wizard to the One with the Power. How that can happen though...I have many snippets of thought, but no real ending here ;). The power of forgiveness is certainly an option, but somehow I would like to see Snape granting that to Harry instead of the other way around. That seems impossible! I'm also torn on the scenario where Harry learns things about Snape's past and feels compassion for him, and can see him in a new way. That fits with having Lily's eyes, but is a huge stretch from where Harry is now. JKR could make it work, Harry even felt a moment of empathy for baby Riddle--if Harry finds out something more profound about Snape than what he saw in the Pensieve scene, will Harry again identify with Snape enough to feel forgiveness? Ah well, enough. I'm stuck and hoping someone will bail me out! Jen From saturniia at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 21:17:50 2005 From: saturniia at yahoo.com (saturniia) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 21:17:50 -0000 Subject: JKR quote re DD dying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140614 Annemehr says of the JKR quote: > Which just makes me think "too much Star Wars!" > > I remember the father figure thread, but durned if I could find it. Saturniia says: Did anyone mention Joseph Campbell in the "father figure" thread? He's probably the most well-known scholar of comparative mythology, and his book "The Hero With A Thousand Faces", which I highly recommend, was read by George Lucas either before or during preproduction of Star Wars. Besides, it's not just Luke and Ben with the violent deaths in the hero-mentor mytharc. Frodo, for one, thought Gandalf was dead when the Ring was destroyed (LotR). There are probably more examples, I just can't think of them now. From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 22:10:55 2005 From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 22:10:55 -0000 Subject: Lily so wonderfull? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140615 Torinarg wrote: > 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? Lyra: We do have some canon that Lily was an accomplished witch... >From PS/SS (chapter 4) Hagrid says "Yer mum and dad were as good a witch and wizard as I ever knew. Head boy and girl at Hogwarts." And of course, from HBP, we have Slughorn's assurance she was a natural at potions. Other than that, we really don't know much about her skills at all, certainly not enough to do a side-by-side Lily vs. Hermione comparison. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Sep 22 01:27:51 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 01:27:51 -0000 Subject: Conflict, imposition, and morality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140616 Sandy *(snip)* > I meant, was it a clue in regards to Snape's attitude about Dumbledore > changing, in preparation for the events on the Tower? Ceridwen: I was suggesting that, at this point, things were probably as usual. They didn't discuss it where they could be overheard, even by portraits. As you say, they were being discreet. And, in this sort of privacy, Snape and Dumbledore would feel more able to 'let it all hang out', say what they feel, argue a bit, and as Dumbledore did, put the foot down without worrying about anyone else overhearing. Not 'airing dirty linen' where others could hear. > I wish I had a > Time Turner and could go and buy book 7 and just know already, dang > it! *(snip)* Me, too! The more we all discuss the possibilities, the more possibilities there seem to be to discuss! > Sandy: *(snip)* > Correct me if I'm wrong, as it's been a while since I delved into the > scriptures, but I don't think The Good Brother ever went off and > joined a bunch of sheep stealers or pillagers or whatever the > equivalent might have been back then. Snape, IMO, is closer TO the > prodigal than the older brother. (And his return to good and > Dumbledore might have been celebrated more thoroughly if people hadn't > been busy mourning James and Lily...) Ceridwen: I'm not going from actual events. In that light then, yes, Snape would be more akin to the prodigal. What I am suggesting is, given Snape's apparent smugness (older brother) over his having obeyed the rules (or at least not gotten caught, evidenced by the incident cards in the detention, and his what seems to be constant nagging of Harry over his constant rule-breaking), that this is how Snape may see himself - doing what is proper and correct, not breaking the rules (at least at Hogwarts). And, he seems to contrast himself and his following of the rules (the incident cards again) against both Harry's 'getting away with' things, and James & Co. breaking rules when they were in school. And, I thought, from reading and discussion, that Snape 'returned' before the attack on GH? So, his return was not marked by the Potters' deaths. Sandy: *(snip)* > The Good Brother was painted as at fault for his lack of forbearance > and his covetousness, IMO and recollection. While Snape may have had > the same feelings, overall this strikes me as lacking resonance when > applied to Snape. The Good Brother resented that following the rules, > as he had been taught had value, didn't pay off with the sort of > dividend his brother got for coming home after having caused the old > man grief and suffering. Ceridwen: And, if Snape is seeing himself as the one who did follow the rules, he would find himself fitting into this mold. IIRC, the older brother's lack of shared joy with his father, his petty wish that the prodigal would get his just desserts, his pouting and sulking, his general ill will and bad feelings, as you said, his lack of forebearance and his covetousness, were his sins and his shame. I can see how he might feel betrayed over working 'thanklessly', even though he is reminded that he still has his inheritance, and he didn't ever have to come crawling for forgiveness for breaking the rules. Sandy: > If Snape was rubbing Harry's nose in his father and company's > trespasses again with the intent of redundantly showing Harry how > awful many of the people who have loved him were as adolescents, then > I am contemptuous of him for it (and I just don't need any more > reasons to hold Snape in contempt). Ceridwen: That's the only way I can read that detention. The actual work Harry is doing is tedious, so is a suitable detention. But, he finds that many of the cards in those years (that year?) belong to his father and Sirius. I can't get away from the idea that Snape purposely chose that box for that reason. Sorry to add fuel! Sandy: > The parable is meant to draw a parallel between the Prodigal Son and > those children of God who fall away from observance of His laws. It is > meant, in all the interpretations I'm aware of, to act as an > illustration that God holds out a carrot, not a stick. That every > soul, no matter the transgressions, is precious to God and that He > aches to have each sinner repent and come home. (I was raised So. > Baptist; can you tell? ) The Elder Son is the part of the parable > which warns off those who follow the rules from getting smug, > self-congratulatory, envious and/or resentful or punitive (echoed in > "forgive us our trespasses as we...") about those who don't. In that > sense it works for me, for I can easily see all of those in Snape. But > the idea that he would see himself as the "sinless" one makes me a > little sick, actually. That's how it played in Foursquare, too. And the smug, self- congratulatory, envious, resentful or punitive reactions do seem to strike me as being very Snape-like. The whole analogy boils down to a pic of the prodigal being greeted by his father in the background, while the elder brother sits and broods on a wall in the foreground. I doubt if Snape sees himself as 'sinless' (oy, he's a fictional character, he doesn't see himself as anything at all! but...). I do think he sees himself as thanklessly above people who make spectacular blunders then turn around and get rewarded for their turning back to the Good Side. I'm sure he knows his own mistakes. He probably notices every time he goes to the DE meetings. But, there are people who just think that turning back to the Good Side shouldn't be celebrated like someone had been saved from certain death. Someone mentioned Puritans. That sort of joyless conviction that everyone else is wrong. Sandy: *(snip)* > Snape is the only one properly to blame for the devaluation of his > life once he joined the DE. The Snape who was warned off telling > Lupin's secret was a pre-fall Snape, AFAWK, a very different > individual, in spite of the fact that we have seen that even then he > grasped after acclaim and respect by hunting up and pointing out > others' shortcomings instead of exerting himself to excel and earn his > laurels more honestly; perhaps he hasn't/hadn't the self-esteem to > believe he can/could earn points honestly or any role models in his > life to suggest the possibility. Ceridwen: Yes, Snape is the only one to blame for his joining the DEs. A mistake, but a big one. Being branded like a slave isn't the smartest thing he's ever done, but it may be the dumbest. After the UV, though, I think there's a contender for the spot of dumbest thing. And, pre-fall Snape was just Snape collecting enough anger to go off and be stupid. IMO, he was already on his way to becoming a DE. Sirius said his gang was comprised of mainly people who became DEs, and that he had a fascination and talent for the Dark Arts from his first day at Hogwarts. You may be right about his role models. If his friends, who were probably older if we count Lucius Malfoy and Bellatrix Black Lestrange among them, were his only role models, then he didn't have anyone he liked or respected enough to counter their influence and his own interests. Sandy: > I absolutely think that the series is going to conclude as follows: > Harry = hero/protagonist > Voldemort = antagonist > Snape = anti-hero (heh, pretty literally...but *very* anti- antagonist) I tend to agree. Snape will never like Harry. And he probably already hates Voldemort. Harry would be the lesser of the two evils to him, but I think he'll always keep a weather eye on Harry, just in case (if he survives book 7). Sandy: > Snape eventually figured out he really did want to "do the right > thing"--just this side of too late; he never had an accessible role > model for "good" until after he'd gone "bad" and so was left with no > choice but to spend the rest of his life backpedalling. (Now you have > me thinking of Snape as prodigal, and it's working for me SO much > better than the other way.) Ceridwen: When you look at what the prodigal actually did, then yes, that would work for me, too. I was going on the attitude of the brother when the prodigal returned. But, there's enough Ambiguous!Snape to spread around this parable! And, it's so much fun! *g* Sandy: > The Order *could* protect James (although it failed before long) > because James never went off and sold his soul to the bad guys! The > Order protects Harry because its members have come to care for him and > because he may be their last, best hope for victory, as well as > because it's the right thing to do. Everything I remember says that > Snape *volunteered* to turn spy in the wake of his sea change. There > is no canon for anyone "throwing" him anywhere, and if that is how he > feels, then he has yet one more symptom of lagging adolescence > showing. Ceridwen: I do think Snape's got a bad case of Nevergrewoutofit. He certainly made his own bed, and now he's got to lie in it. His value is in his role as spy first, then his potions and Dark Arts knowledge. He placed himself in that position, therefore, he was the logical one to infiltrate. That wouldn't stop him from feeling put-upon, at least some of the time. And, since I agree with you that he never quite got over his adolescent grudges etc., to him it was just adding more on top. No one cares about him or his life, he could be killed and they wouldn't care - a huge case of self-pity. Which is never attractive (though we all get tempted at times) and never productive. I'm suggesting only how it appears to me that he sees things, not the way they actually are. Everyone notices how Harry makes mistakes based on faulty or incomplete evidence, I think Snape echoes that in his own mistaken beliefs on this subject. You know, after I posted, I wondered if I'd made it clear that I was talking about how Snape may view things. Reading it over, I realized I hadn't. Sandy: *(snip)* > The only way this "Good Brother" thing works for me is if the last > book makes it clear that Snape's initial decision to join the Death > Eaters was part of an infiltration plan that far back. Not very > likely, IMO. Ceridwen: I don't think it's likely, either, but you can never really tell with JKR until it's in writing. I was surprised over a good part of HBP. It worked for me overall, but there were some things I didn't care for and was unpleasantly surprised to see. And, again, Snape as the Good Brother only does work in the GB's feelings when the prodigal returns, not in the context of the whole story. In that context, yes, he would more be the prodigal. But, if he follows the pattern closely enough, that means his return was sincere. Ceridwen, who is sorry for the misunderstandings! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 22 02:12:24 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 02:12:24 -0000 Subject: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks Snape is guilty?/Some UV again (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140617 Alla wrote: > I disagree even with such statement, Pippin. Under circumstances I believe he IS acting rationally. Again, he may not know the whole story, but I believe it is completely rationally for him considering the evidence he has to want to avenge Dumbledore's death. JMO, of course. Carol responds: According to Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary, "rational" means "relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason." "Reason" means "the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking, especially in orderly, rational ways" or "proper exercise of the mind." While I admit that's a slightly circular definition (surely "rational" should not be included in the definition of "reason" since "reason" is necessarily included in the definition of "rational"), the concept should nevertheless be clear. Harry is not employing reason (orderly or logical thinking). He's employing emotion--his horror at the death of his supposedly all-powerful mentor and his pre-existing hatred of Snape intensified by his brand-new discovery that Snape is the spy who informed Voldemort of the Prophecy that resulted in the death of his parents. Under the circumstances, even a calm, nonjudgmental (rational) person who normally uses inductive or inductive reasoning to arrive at logical conclusions would have difficulty seeing the whole picture or viewing Snape as innocent until proven guilty. As I said in another post, the evidence of his senses (what he sees with his own eyes) would seem sufficient to "prove" that Snape murdered Dumbledore. But such a person would not, I hope, attempt to punish the "murderer" by Crucioing him--a weapon Harry knows to be evil and used exclusively by Death Eaters and Voldemort. And such a person would also, I hope, become aware when his mental state returned to normal that what he saw with his own eyes contained some strange anomalies. But Harry, who is more in touch with his emotions than his intellect and is not known for weighing pros and cons before he rushes to rescue people, will need some help if he is ever to react rationally to Dumbledore's death, or rather to Snape's role in bringing it about. Harry's reaction is *understandable.* It's normal for anyone, adult or teenager, to be angry when someone he perceives as his enemy hurts someone he loves, and it's natural (if not right or moral) to want to hurt them in return. But it is not *rational*--and I think JKR has shown with Peter Pettigrew in PoA that she does not regard revenge as right. Harry has yet to examine the evidence and employ *reason* to understand it. Quite possibly he's incapable of doing so, at least in this instance. But Hermione isn't, and neither is Lupin. I'm hoping he'll provide them with sufficient details about the events on the tower and about Snape in general that they will start questioning what Harry takes for granted. At that point, we'll see a genuinely rational reaction. Carol From Meliss9900 at aol.com Thu Sep 22 02:32:59 2005 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 22:32:59 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks Snape is guilty?/... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140618 In a message dated 9/21/2005 9:12:59 PM Central Standard Time, justcarol67 at yahoo.com writes: Harry has yet to examine the evidence and employ *reason* to understand it. Quite possibly he's incapable of doing so, at least in this instance. But Hermione isn't, and neither is Lupin. I'm hoping he'll provide them with sufficient details about the events on the tower and about Snape in general that they will start questioning what Harry takes for granted. At that point, we'll see a genuinely rational reaction. Exactly. And after that point if he continues to ignore reason then I agree that he would be acting like an idiot (even if he ultimately proved to be correct about Snape) . But at the moment he is basing his reaction on what he observed with his own eyes. Melissa [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Sep 22 02:38:30 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 02:38:30 -0000 Subject: The Powerful Slytherin (Re: Snape/Harry coincidence?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140619 Jen Reese: > He was completely right Draco was up to no good, but he didn't > realize part of his obsession was watching Draco move on without > him. Draco gave up his boyhood pursuits--Quidditch, harassing Harry, > being Snape's favorite--to take on a man's job. [...] > What does Harry need to learn from Snape? For it seems inevitable to > me this will be the final area of growth for Harry in defeating > Voldemort. [...] > I think the one Slytherin trait Harry is lacking at the moment is > coming to terms with the idea of power. houyhnhnm: I'm not sure in how it points the way to a resolution of the conflict between Harry and Snape; it doesn't seem to lead to anything in book 6, but the exhange between the two of them in DADA struck me as very significant. --------------------------------------- "Yes," said Harry stiffly. "Yes, *sir*." "There's no need to call me 'sir', Professor." The words had escaped him before he knew what he was saying. Several people gasped, including Hermione.... "Detention, Saturday night, my office," said Snape. "I do not take cheek from anyone, Potter ... not even *'the Chosen One'*." --------------------------------------- I was one of the ones who gasped. It's smart aleck and funny--the funniest line in book (next to "Oh, well, that's better than a whack on the nose with a rusty poker.")-- but it's also the first time I can think of that Harry responds to Snape in an adult way. Harry's freshness with adults is a defense mechanism he has learned in dealing with dumb Uncle Vernon. He's a child protecting himself against hostile adults who wish him harm. Up to the exchange in the DADA class, all of Harry's interactions with Snape partake of this kind of defensiveness, IMO. The "There's no need to call me 'sir', Professor." has a different ring to it. It's much more grown-up. Snape's reaction is very mild. "said Snape" Snape doesn't usually 'say'. He 'sneers'; he 'smirks'; he 'spits'. He is treating Harry more like an adult in this exchange, it seems to me. I have the inward conviction that he was repressing a smile. Like I said this doesn't change the trajectory of their relationship in book 6. It doesn't seem to retard the escalation of their mutual hatred. Maybe it helps to lay the groundwork for a more adult relationship between them in book 7. I can't imagine how it will work out plotwise, though. This doesn't really help, I know, but it seems somehow to be connected to your theme of Harry's coming to terms with the use of power. The analysis of what Harry learned from Draco was very interesting, BTW. It wasn't anything I'd thought of before, but it rang true. From bibphile at yahoo.com Thu Sep 22 03:06:10 2005 From: bibphile at yahoo.com (bibphile) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 03:06:10 -0000 Subject: HBP's potions discoveries - why keep them secret? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140620 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bocadetomates" wrote: > So, finally I come out of the dark corner I've been lurking in to put > up a question that's haunted me for a few days now. I hope this > hasn't been brought up before: Has anybody ever wondered why the > discoveries a schoolboy (an exceptionally gifted one, granted, but > yet a schoolboy) made twenty years ago about better ways of making > well-known potions haven't found their way into the "official" potion- > making guidelines (as Hermione calls them)? > I don't know why Snape didn't publish his discoveries but it's very possible that he has been teaching them. As far as I remember Harry didn't use a potions book in his second through fifth years. Snape wrote instructions on the board. Snape could easily have been teaching his improved formulas. Depending on how many students you think are in Harry's year it's possible that as many as 25% of the students in Harry's year got O's on their potions O.W.L.S. (more if some made O's but didn't take NEWT level courses). If they were asked to make a potion from their own knowledge without instructions (and I have no idea if they were) then Snape's superior formulas might have contributed to the high number of O's. From djklaugh at comcast.net Thu Sep 22 05:45:03 2005 From: djklaugh at comcast.net (Deb) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 05:45:03 -0000 Subject: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks Snape is guilty? Was: Why wizards are so i In-Reply-To: <007701c5be68$03a57b20$ea21f204@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140621 >Deb wrote (snip) > They do NOT go blasting into the air. > > > Sherry responds: > > I'm not convinced. Whatever happened at Godric's Hollow, it blew up the > house! So what's so strange about Snape's curse blasting Dumbledore into > the air? And in the long run, whatever curse was used, be it AK or > something else, the end result is still the same. Dumbledore is dead at > Snape's hand. Harry witnessed it happen. Deb replies: But it was a *failed* AK that blew up the house. One that rebounded off Harry and hit LV. We see in COS what happens when a memory charm backfires through Ron's damaged wand and takes out >all< of Lockhart's memory not just parts of it. And in GOF we see that the power of spells can be combined when wizards work together... as they did in subduing the dragons. Also see this in POA when the trio all blast Snape at once with "Expelliarimus" and it knocks him out cold when what that spell is supposed to do is expel what ever the other person is holding from their hand. And at the end of GOF we see what can happen when multiple spells are fired at an individual all at the same time... when Harry, Ron, Hermione, Fred, George blast Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle with multiple spells at the same time (GOF page 730 Amer h.b. edition) "Interesting effect," said George looking down at Crabbe. "Who used the Furnunculus Curse?" "Me", said Harry. "Odd", said George lightly. "I used Jelly-Legs. Looks as though those two shouldn't be mixed. He seems to have sprouted little tentacles all over his face...." plus all three were unconscious The way spells appear to work is that the person casting the spell has to form a specific intention, use the correct word(s) and say them correctly (don't forget Wizard Baruffio who ended up with a bison on his chest because he said "s" instead of "f")and wand movement, speak or think the spell with the appropriate amount of force to bring about the desired effect, and focus the intention and energy through a working wand. When one or more of these elements is not correct then the effects of the spell are distorted - either enhanced, diminished, or warped in some way. And I think this can happen when one deliberately changes the dynamics of a spell also. I think at GH (which Harry also witnessed by the way even though he was just a toddler he does remember pieces of it like the blinding flash of green light and LV's laugh and at times his mother's pleas) what happened was a combination of a failed/rebounded AK plus another spell cast by someone else who was there (Snape? or someone else I'm not sure).... a spell that should not have been mixed with the rebounded AK cuz it caused an explosion and may have been part of the effect that created Vapormort. See, IMO, LV loves an audience - he could have killed Harry several times over in the graveyard before all the DEs showed up but he wanted an audience to see his triumph over Harry. And at GH I would bet that he also wanted an audience when he finally took out the Potters and, from his POV, triumphed over what he knew of the prophecy. In the graveyard he speaks of "three dead in my service" when noting who is absent from the circle. Perhaps it is these three who were with him and who were blown to smithereens... > Deb: > Perhaps what Harry is supposed to do is to THINK! (snip) > Sherry now: (snip) How can anyone seriously expect Harry not to believe what he > believes? I think the finest police officer, FBI agent or any other top > notch law enforcement officer in the same circumstances would believe what > they saw. Snape said a curse, and Dumbledore is dead. It's pretty simple > really. Deb again: I don't disagree with you Sherry about what Harry had just gone through... but that is the whole point. If Harry is to find the truth and vanquish LV he has to be able to put aside his emotions and think clearly. Harry is capable of this... we see him do so on many occasions when he is facing LV, TR, dragons, merfolk, etc. This is the lesson that Snape, DD, and others have been trying to teach him... intense emotion clouds rational thought. And interfers with one's ability to think through situations, arrive at correct answers, and perform appropriate and effective magic. I think one reason Snape worked so hard at the end to deflect Harry's spells and prevent him from uttering an Unforgivable Curse is that he knew that in those moments Harry was fully capable of putting enough emotional force behind such a curse for it to work properly ... and if he did so, it would utterly destroy him. It would tear his soul, not just because he had killed someone, but also because the guilt and remorse of having done so would immobilize him and make him incapable of fighting LV (look at his reaction to the consequences of his uttering the Sectumsempre curse... and he hates Malfoy too). And Harry is the only one who can vanquish the Dark Lord. And as to what a cop would make of that scene on the tower... well a rookie would probably react as Harry did ... but if a seasoned veteran were in Harry's place, I think he or she would be observing and comparing his observations with everything he knows about magic, about the people involved, about everything he or she has learned in a career ... and I think such a veteran cop might just say "hummmm something does not add up here. Something about this does not ring true... all is not as it appears to be". And though Harry is just shy of 17, he certainly is more of a "seasoned veteran" in the fight against LV and the DEs than any of his peers and many of his friends who are older than he is. He has defied LV 4 or 5 times already and no one prior to him has done so more than three times (other than perhaps DD). > Sherry wrote (snip) > if again, Harry is wrong, all wrong, poor, misguided, hapless stupid > boy. No, Sevvy wouldn't hurt a fly and never killed Dumbledore and someone > like Hermione is going to lay it al out for Harry, and Harry is going to > feel terrible. Been there, done that. I like my idea of a true murder, but > then a true remorse and redemption much better. Of course, as always, only > JKR knows for sure. Deb again: Yes there is going to have to be alot of explaining and some display of the real Snape plus evidence of his remorse for what he has done (and if he and DD had a UV between them I sure hope he has that in writing or saved as a Pensieve memory cuz I'm not inclined to just take his word for it) before I, for one, will think he has earned redemption for many, many crimes - not just being the agent of DD's death. And I hope JKR is up to the task of providing that cuz she sure has written herself and Snape into a very deep pit. But I do think that there is much much more to Snape than we currently know. And I am hoping that there is a clear and compelling rationale behind his actions. Deb (djklaugh) if Sherlock Holmes had been a wizard might he have been an Auror? "It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." (Arthur Conan Doyle in "The Adventure of Beryl Coronet"); "You know my method. It is founded upon the observation of trifles" (ACD in The Boscombe Valley Mystery); "Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing. It may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different" (ACD in Bosc op cit); "The world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes." (ACD in The Hound of the Baskervilles); "I suppose that I am commuting a felony, but it is just possible that I am saving a soul." (ACD in The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Sep 22 06:52:14 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 06:52:14 -0000 Subject: The power of spells ( was Re: Is Harry an idiot ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140622 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Deb" wrote: Deb: > But it was a *failed* AK that blew up the house. One that > rebounded off Harry and hit LV. We see in COS what happens when a > memory charm backfires through Ron's damaged wand and takes out > >all< of Lockhart's memory not just parts of it. Geoff: Interesting you should mention this particular event because I have often wondered whether this particular incident shows that a spell can have levels of intensity. 'Harry jumped forward, but too late. Lockhart was straighteneing up, panting. Ron's wand was in his hand and a gleaming smile back on his face. "The adventure ends here, boys!" he said. "I shall take a bit of this skin back up to the school, tell them I was too late to save the girl and that you two tragically lost your minds at the sight of her mangled body. Say goodbye to your memories!"' (COS "The Chamber of Secrets" p.224 UK edition) Lockhart is prepared to sacrifice Ginny for the sake of his reputation. The use of "lost" seems suspicious. Is Lockhart just intending to take out all of their memories - which, as Deb points out - happened to him? I wonder how an Obliviate spell is set up; the wizard casting it must have to decide on the memories to be modified. I suspect that Lockhart was going for a complete wipe-out. From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Sep 22 02:13:27 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 22:13:27 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Prodigal Sons References: Message-ID: <016301c5bf1b$3b3c31b0$2c60400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 140623 Mrsbeadsley wrote: > The Order *could* protect James (although it failed before long) > because James never went off and sold his soul to the bad guys! The > Order protects Harry because its members have come to care for him and > because he may be their last, best hope for victory, as well as > because it's the right thing to do. Everything I remember says that > Snape *volunteered* to turn spy in the wake of his sea change. There > is no canon for anyone "throwing" him anywhere, and if that is how he > feels, then he has yet one more symptom of lagging adolescence > showing. IMO. Poor ickle Snape is never going to work for me any > better than poor ickle Dudley or poor ickle Draco; I am not angelic > enough to fight off the satisfaction I feel at seeing (at least > literary constructs) bullies get some comeuppance. (And before anyone > plunges fingers to keyboards in haste to remind me of MWPP, let me > just add that there's never a second chance to make a first > impression. And MWPP tormented a peer, not an inferior.) SisterMagpie: Actually, I can't resist pointing out not that MWPP bullied in one scene, but that in a post about the meaning of the Prodigal Son and how Snape could never be the Good Brother you're, uh, playing part of the Good Brother. That is, feeling satisfaction at the idea of Snape, Draco or Dudley getting their comeuppance--exactly what the Good Son was presumably counting on when his brother came home. Instead he was welcomed back with a feast and a fatted calf for dinner. :-) I remember pre-OotP actually describing Snape much the same way as Ceridwen is, actually. Not as the Good Son, but by saying that I thought Snape probably resented the fact that he did lots of dirty work and all James (and later Sirius) did was die dramatically and was remembered as a great hero, especially when James seemed like he could be a real jerk to Snape. At the time people thought that was ridiculous--how could James be a jerk? But I thought the way MWPP treated Snape in the Pensieve was already laid out for us through the Map in PoA. I guess within the scene it seems like they're sticking up for Harry against Snape the teacher, but I assumed that this was just the way they spoke to him all the time. I wouldn't actually really see Snape as the Prodigal or the Good Son, exactly, because we don't know what kind of a relationship he had with Dumbledore. Just as I wouldn't consider Draco a Prodigal Son in HBP--he and Snape might have only become potential "sons" at the moment of their potential conversions to the good side. So while I don't know whether Snape would see himself as the one who followed the rules (he knows he was a DE), I think he does seem to have a feeling that's a bit like that, a feeling that James always got things he didn't. He probably did, actually, being charming and handsome. But, of course, that doesn't make it James' fault that Snape decided to be a DE. -m From ewetoo at gmail.com Thu Sep 22 03:03:33 2005 From: ewetoo at gmail.com (ewe2) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:03:33 +1000 Subject: What's In A Patronus? (updated and revised) Message-ID: <20050922030333.GA31150@4dot0.net> No: HPFGUIDX 140624 What's in a Patronus? What indeed, eh? Silmariel and Ewe2 present the theory of Narcissa!Tonks and daddy dragon Snape. There are three Patronuses. Narcissa!Tonks Patronus, Snape's Patronus, and Patronus the latin for Protector. If this seems a bit overblown, I (ewe2) admit I've been watching too much Spooks lately. Hence technical words like "cover" (false identity) and "legend" (background to provide a believable "personality"). This is the new revised version for those who need citations to argue over. Some new cites have been added as they were found. Page and Chapter references Bloomsbury hardback edition. Basic Assumptions: 1. We assume Narcissa!Tonks. 2. We assume either that Molly is (a) inadvertently backing up Narcissa's cover or (b) is actively involved. (Spinner's End) 3. We assume that DD knows what's going on. 4. We assume Snape knows about Imposter!Tonks as well. Let's take this in turn: 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. a) 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. b) 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.) c) "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). d) The ignorance of asking about letters between the Order members is so obvious it should even have made Harry notice. But then, a Patronus that doesn't send messages is pretty useless for an Order member isn't it? And why ask Harry, who has never been at the centre of Order communications as frequently shown in OoP? Just because she knows he sees DD? (pp435-436 The Unknowable Room) e) The story slips. First she's upset about Sirius (p93) then suddenly it's all about unrequited love of Lupin (p582). Why Lupin? Any connection to the fact that Snape HATES Lupin? And if we're to believe the time-scale, either its an amazingly sudden transformation, something major has happened we're not being told about, or porkys are hovering outside the window. Just because Harry makes 2+2=5 does not convince me we should also. 2. Molly's involvement (pp313 and 318): a) 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. Of course, in the end, she has to play the part to the hilt to protect her cover in the hospital wing. Molly shushes Fleur because she won't hear of anyone slighting the poor girl in her desperation. Why would she not choose to be with her family at Christmas? The fact remains that oddly, Fleur is the only evidence for a clumsy Tonks at all, and Fleur is hardly a credible witness. (Slug Club p126, A Very Frosty Christmas pp313, 318) b) Silmariel suggests that Molly may be in with Narcissa on the basis of saving their children, which is a good motive. So Molly makes sure that Fleur doesn't draw too much attention to "Tonks". But in the final scene, Molly would know Narcissa!Tonks is acting, could she really keep quiet about it? What kind of duress could Molly be under to enforce her silence? 3. DD knows what's going on. a) "Tonks" is fearful of spending any time in DD's presence. She was lucky DD wasn't going to stay back with Molly, but then if Molly is 2a, she's in more danger from DD herself than Molly. Of course, if DD already knows because he is protecting her, then he probably wants her off as quickly as possible so as not to tip Harry off. (An Excess of Phelgm pp81-82) b) Assume Snape told DD about the Vow and Draco. He *may* have told him about Narcissa!Tonks. This bears on a more general question: Has DD successfully Legilimens Snape? It is a vital question in other ways, but in this case at least, if DD suspects that the Vow was a conspiracy, he may have his own ideas about Narcissa's involvement; we do not know if he was around "Tonks" long enough to suspect except at the Weasleys. c) DD refuses to give his motives for many of his actions leading up to his death. If we find it hard to believe he does not know something vital about Snape that redeems his actions, then it is impossible that he heard about "Tonks" also but had nothing to say about it unless she is completely genuine or he knows its an imposter. And if we're right about 4a below, then he certainly knows, but may be keeping this secret from Snape because it was a condition of Narcissa's. It's a fair bet DD is a good Occulumens too. d) What is DD likely to know about Snape that may have a bearing on this? 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. It fits the Vow, it fits Narcissa!Tonks, and it fits DD's puzzling silence. DD may also have kept his knowledge secret from Snape. but that's not necessarily the case (4c). e) Assuming DD knows about Narcissa, why? Because Snape may fail to fulfil the Vow in the end (p573, "Tonks" needs to know how DD died). Because he can use her to keep an eye on Snape. Because in any case Harry knows enough now to stop Voldy (only he doesn't quite know that yet). Is DD responsible for the Vow? Look at the resistance Bella puts up to the idea of even dealing with Snape, and the Vow leaves her dumbstruck. This almost certainly means that the real Tonks is dead or out of reach of help. 4. Snape and Narcissa!Tonks (pp152-153) a) If 3d isn't enough to satisfy you, Silmariel has the original idea that Snape's remark about a "new Patronus" is exactly that: a new guardian, from Voldy to DD. Narcissa wouldn't be pleased to have that hinted at in front of Harry, but Snape seems arrogantly sure Harry wouldn't pick it up and he's unfortunately right. Of course, he also has to cover for the fact that Narcissa's Patronus wouldn't send messages anyway. Snape is covering for Narcissa's presence at Hogwarts by answering the "Patronus". May she not only be minding Draco but is a go-between for Snape and others? b) One scenario is Snape knows about Narcissa going to DD but thinks DD doesn't know this (3c & d). c) The other option, naturally is that DD has masterminded the Vow for Snape and Narcissa to protect Draco in any case. There are minor questions that arise from the situation not covered above: does Bella have another motive for making Draco Legilimens-proof from Snape apart from several obvious ones? If she knew of Draco's real parentage it would be a powerful motive. Problems with the theory: 1. Where is the real Tonks? a) If DD knows of Narcissa!Tonks, then he presumably knows about what happened to the real Tonks. Is she dead, or merely out of reach? Why would he allow this situation? b) If Molly knows, she would be even less capable of keeping quiet about it. This strongly argues against Molly's knowing involvement. c) Is it possible that Lupin (assuming the lovestory is not mere legend) can be fooled by Narcissa!Tonks? It's all a bit sudden isn't it? Silmariel adds: They don't appear to be together in the whole book, at least not with the Tonks we see. Lupins says in Christmas he hasn't seen her in a long time, and if we are to believe chapter 21 at face value (hinting what the real Tonks is about with Lupin), Tonks is desperate looking for Lupin's news. My reading was they could have seen each other say 2 or 3 times, and that is not out of reach, if the couple doesn't know each other well enough, they might don't know exactly if the other has changed in such a period and with a war at hand, and insecurity can run rampart. d) We are faced with another missing time-period. Something happens between OotP and HBP that we are not privy to. Is this credible? e) It is still possible that the real Tonks is in fact in love with Lupin and Narcissa!Tonks stole the legend to provide cover. So the real Tonks could conceivably appear at the end. But I have two problems with this: surely the real Tonks would be warning the others about a ring-in! How could she be allowed to escape otherwise? How successful a conspirator could Molly be in this case? f) It must also be conceded that despite the apparent contradiction, a Patronus might possibly change as a result of the "happy memory" being connected to a loved one. But this 'palely loitering' form of attachment that inteferes with Patronuses and Metamorphagi doesn't satisfy my inner Ockham's Razor, it's too far-fetched. 2. Snape, Narcissa, Draco. a) Where is the tangible evidence? As a theory to explain current events, it may hold up but where is outside confirmation? Why didn't Harry see something of this in the Pensieve? Silmariel: Draco went to Hogwards because Narcissa didn't want him in Durmstrang. Suspicious minds can tie it to Snape (we knew so little of Narcissa up to OoP but we knew that). b) What was the point of the Vow if it was only to convince Bella and Voldy? 3. Does DD have to know EVERYTHING? a) Well no. But then, we didn't know about silent magic or many other major things before HBP. We don't know what DD knew. We can't rule it out. But its not necessary for him to know it all for the theory to be plausible. Silmariel adds this zinger: "Only taking your life would not satisfy me" - that's throwing a gauntlet, as I see it, he told Voldie he was going to hunt him, he could expect a reaction. A question: if all magic leaves traces, Can Cissy's arm and hand betray her? So there's a possble path to proof and a threat from beyond the grave. Rhetorical or not? 4. Surely Molly isn't that stupid? a) No, but she is a romantic well-meaning mother. I differ from Silmariel in that I don't see a conspiracy as necessary and indeed possibly too dangerous. But then it's possible she is under duress. Silmariel: Don't see it as necessary but I can't disregard conspiracy shadows over Fleur. I still think she has to serve for something other than being perfectly pretty and perfectly in love with Bill because she was one of the champions in GoF, she should be a competent wizard. Oh, at least I hope so. Ok, we're done. Over to you! -- "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - Adam Savage From Cairie.Witter at resbank.co.za Thu Sep 22 06:34:10 2005 From: Cairie.Witter at resbank.co.za (Cairie Witter) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:34:10 +0200 Subject: Dumbledore's death Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140625 knorte1 wrote: > ... but I'm wondering why everyone seems so completely convinced > that DD is really "dead." I think that, unfortunately, that Dumbledore is dead. Firstly, he fell off the tower after the curse and, no one can survive such a fall. Secondly I think that if he could survive such a fall he would have to change in to some or other animal. We don't no if he could change, of course, but, if he could, I think that he was much to weak to do that. Cairie (who cried her eyes out while reading Dumbledor's funeral) From maliksthong at yahoo.com Thu Sep 22 08:53:32 2005 From: maliksthong at yahoo.com (Chys Lattes) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:53:32 -0000 Subject: Why are wizards so incompetent? /Evil Overlords/ Some... In-Reply-To: <20050921164437.65383.qmail@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140626 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Jane Starr wrote: > > --- Meliss9900 at a... wrote a bunch of good stuff > including: > > (As for the > > AK not leaving a mark . .well that trickle of blood > > could be seen as literary license by the authoress). > > JES: > Or the result of the body having fallen from the top > of the highest tower at Hogwarts? I know there isn't > supposed to be bleeding after death, but is it > possible that after a fall of that distance the impact > might be some forced out anyway? > > JES (mostly a lurker but enjoying the discussions) Chys: Why wasn't he splattered against the ground then? This part confused me, he seemed to be whole and resting peacefully at the bottom, when he just fell from the tallest tower. What gives? *has seen the results of people jumping off of high places like that. That and getting hit by a semi-truck, even at slow speeds, can make you practically explode.* It's perfectly argueable that there'd be blood. I just thought more. Chys From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Thu Sep 22 10:23:16 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 10:23:16 -0000 Subject: The Powerful Slytherin (Re: Snape/Harry coincidence?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140627 Saraquel: Loath to snip any of Jen's post, which being about themes and so eloquently written, of course had me enthralled from the start! But I am going to take it up at the point where Jen starts to talk about power being the Slytherin trait that Harry now needs. Jen wrote: >I think the one Slytherin trait Harry is lacking at the moment is >coming to terms with the idea of power. In fact, Harry is much more >like the Slytherins in this respect than a Gryffindor. What could be >more powerful and ambitious than preparing to defeat the greatest >dark wizard ever?!? He's biased against the idea of holding power >after he meets Voldemort in PS, then when introduced to the likes >of Barty Crouch Sr., Umbridge and others who abuse their power. But >the truth is, Harry is seeking power over his enemies every time he >casts a dark magic spell! When he defies Scrimgeour and the MOM, >and takes his place beside Dumbledore, he's merely choosing which >powerful leader to attach himself to. And of course he continues >to reject and minimize the power within himself, the key to >Voldemort's defeat. Harry has not yet understood, as DD has understood, the power that resides within him and its uniqueness. Yes, Jen, no need to wonder where I'm going back to on this one :-) I think that you are right about the examples of power that have been in Harry's life and his rejection of them on the one hand, but resorting to those same dark magic powers on the other when he is threatened or feels powerless. Because, I don't think he dares to trust to love, and has no concept of what love really might be, or what its power might be. Then he has also seen what has happened to the only person he knew, who trusted to love ? Dumbledore. He saw Dumbledore's love and mercy on the tower with regard to Draco, but then he saw how powerless DD was when Snape arrived. What happened when DD *pleaded* with Snape? What Harry saw was apparently (and I'm taking things at face value here) DD reduced to a position of powerlessness in the face of evil, and evil won plain and simple. As far as Harry was concerned, for all his love-is-power, DD could not save himself. Where love (in the form of compassion) may have been effective in dealing with Draco, when faced with the person Harry considers an evil person (I know I'm generalising here to simplify, because as has been discussed on the list, there are so many dynamics going on between Harry and Snape, but in general, at the end of HBP, I think Harry would consider Snape evil.) Dumbledore's faith in love did not protect DD from whatever curse it was that Snape threw at him ? and from Harry's POV, it was an AK, exactly the same curse which has already been thrown at him by LV and the curse which he is anticipating will probably kill him. There is only one place that Harry is going to be able to see the power of love in action and understand what it is, and what it means and that is GH. I am wondering if a second hand narration of what happened there is going to be enough to convince Harry. JKR has all but told us that there was someone else at GH who presumably, could tell Harry what happened. But in a sense, Harry already knows what happened, he knows that his mother's love caused an AK to rebound, but he cannot have any real concept of how or why it happened. I think he needs to actually see it happen, so I am betting that after getting a description from whoever that person was, he will go into the pensieve with his own memory, and I think that that is the experience which will not only convince him of the power of love, but show him how to use it. I think that the protection of Lily's love is an actual something that is in Harry, and that Harry will see that power enter him when his mother dies. This is the only place he will be able to get proof that love alone saved him from the AK. The power of love is more powerful than the AK. We have been debating on the list, when is an AK not an AK ? when is murder not murder. Is it the AK itself that causes problems, or is the context in which it is cast. I'm not going to take sides here, but context is not something that cannot be ignored. The context is created by what the participants view to be good or bad, not necessarily by what the observers view to be so. For instance, it has been argued that if DD wanted to die to save others and asked Snape to do it, then it was not murder. So taking that argument over to the power of love ? there is always the context in which this power is used. I'm wondering if the power of love only works in a *just* situation, or that it is only something that can be used defensively and not offensively. But if that is so, then Harry has to learn that, and he has to trust that. OK, I need to take a detour to explain this ? bear with me. I want to bring in here part of the inaugural speech made by Nelson Mandela, "Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented and fabulous? Actually, who are you NOT to be?" Having power is such a scary thing. To have power without love, and no sense of good and evil, is to have power without responsibility, which is what Voldemort has and it leads only to pain. I must admit, that I have always found it somewhat unbelievable that Voldemort has any followers whatsoever, the way he treats them. We have yet to see Voldemort, showing anything other than cruelty. As Riddle, we saw him exert his charm, but that seems to have gone now. I can't remember who it was earlier on the list who speculated that probably only Bellatrix would sacrifice herself for Voldemort, the rest IMO are more likely to turn him in and help Harry to his victory. For Harry, who has a very deep sense of responsibility, power is a very frightening thing. To wield power, is to make decisions which have consequences. We have already seen him struggling with this. Concepts of right and wrong are very important for Harry, was he right to go to the Ministry when he thought Sirius was in danger? He struggled with the fact that he had endangered the lives of his friends, and that Sirius lost his life. He knows that his decisions have repercussions for those around him. Therefore, the more power he has to yield, the greater the repercussions are likely to be. It is not so much the power, but the trusting himself to wield it correctly which is so frightening. I'm reminded of DD's huger mistakes speech. To requote Jen: But the > truth is, Harry is seeking power over his enemies every time he > casts a dark magic spell! Harry was terrified of the use of his power with the sectumsempra spell. His remorse was palpable. And here we are again, back to choices! Harry has to learn to trust his own judgement. For Harry, I don't think that destroying Voldemort is a moral problem. To us readers, and to Harry, Voldemort has no saving graces ? nothing, as I've said above, that could possibly redeem him. Nothing that could make it any sort of mistake to take him out. Perhaps that's why JKR has made him so evil through and through. But we are watching Harry edging towards taking out Snape. Even if you believe Snape is ESE, does that give Harry the right to pass judgement on him and take him out at the next opportunity? For most of us Snape is ambiguous. So having taken Saraquel's detour, we now get back to whether the power of love is offensive or defensive. Let us assume that Harry finds his power, he discovers what happens at GH, and gets in touch with his power of love. What is going to happen when he next meets Snape? Will he abandon silent curses and crucios in favour of trying to use his new found power? What will happen? Will he then find out that the power of love cannot be used from the motivation of hatred? That if there is hatred there is no power for him? In fact, that the crucial thing about his power is that requires him to have forgiveness in order to use it? That in order to wield this power he has to become totally vulnerable in a way? Now that is scary. I think I'm about thought out for this post. I'm not sure where that leaves us, but hopefully Jen or someone else will move us along. Saraquel Who is now abandoning herself to Beethoven. From hubbada at unisa.ac.za Thu Sep 22 11:21:51 2005 From: hubbada at unisa.ac.za (deborahhbbrd) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 11:21:51 -0000 Subject: HBP's potions discoveries - why keep them secret? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140628 bocadetomates wrote: > Has anybody ever wondered why the discoveries a schoolboy (an > exceptionally gifted one, granted, but yet a schoolboy) made twenty > years ago about better ways of making well-known potions haven't > found their way into the "official" potion-making guidelines (as > Hermione calls them)? Deborah now: Snape the schoolboy, handing his improved potion formulae/methods to his teacher - who must by definition be less competent than himself? Can you see it? Nor can I. Snape the teacher, however, could well share a particularly odd and nasty characteristic with many Muggle teachers I've had as colleagues down the years (OK, OK, down the decades): being just downright possessive about his own methods, lesson plans, worksheets, sure-fire test and exam questions ... you name it, they hang on to it like grim death. My feeling has always been that if it works for the kids I teach, then it'll probably work for Mrs X's class as well, and since our mutual purpose is to teach children to our best ability, Mrs X is more than welcome to my stuff. And she gets it. But more often than not, I don't get hers. Weird, but it fits into my mental picture of Snape. Not a sharer. Not a generous man. Whatever else he may be ... a bit of an Eeyore, actually, with that attitude of "if people could be bothered to know the Real Me they'd be impressed but as it is, I won't tell; it's their loss". Deborah From trekkie at stofanet.dk Thu Sep 22 13:20:32 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:20:32 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's AK References: Message-ID: <000f01c5bf78$691b6170$080aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 140629 From: "strawberryshaunie" > I noticed something while reading CoS that doesn't seem to have been > pointed out. In the duelling Club scene, Snape uses Expelliarmus on > Lockhart, *blasting him off his feet* (and into the air, slamming him > into a tapestry or some such, if I'm remembering correctly). At the > time, it seemed a demonstration of Snape's power: it seems a mere > disarming spell, performed with enough drive, perhaps enough magical > power behind it is enough to blast a foe away. This is almost exactly > like Snape's AK in the tower situation. I think this is evidence that > the AK was legit. A spell can produce extra effects, whether it's > because of the magical power of the spell caster, or the level of > concentration on the three D's or some other side effect that has yet > to be explained. To me, that just confirms my own theory (and I know I'm not alone in subscribing to that) that Snape cast a non-verbal Expelliarmus (or something similar) simultaniously with his (non-working) AK. Whenever a PROPER AK has been cast, people just drop dead. The do *not* fly into the air. But we have seen an Expelliarmus have that "throwing through the air" effect in the Shrieking Shack too, when Snape is knocked out. So I'm still convinced that Snape did NOT cast a *working* AK against Dumbledore. Whether or not he killed him is a moot point. Personally I think Dumbledore was allready dead (or as close to dead that it didn't really matter) fromt he Horcrux potion when Snape threw him from the tower. He just needed it to look like he had indeed AK'ed Dumbledore in order to keep his cover with the DE's and get close to Voldemort. ~Trekkie From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 22 13:10:33 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:10:33 -0000 Subject: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks Snape is guilty? Was: Why wizards are so i In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140630 > > Deb again: > I don't disagree with you Sherry about what Harry had just gone > through... but that is the whole point. > And as to what a cop would make of that scene on the tower... well > a rookie would probably react as Harry did ... but if a seasoned > veteran were in Harry's place, I think he or she would be observing > and comparing his observations with everything he knows about magic, > about the people involved, about everything he or she has learned in > a career ... and I think such a veteran cop might just say "hummmm > something does not add up here. Something about this does not ring > true... all is not as it appears to be". And though Harry is just > shy of 17, he certainly is more of a "seasoned veteran" in the fight > against LV and the DEs than any of his peers and many of his friends > who are older than he is. He has defied LV 4 or 5 times already and > no one prior to him has done so more than three times (other than > perhaps DD). Alla: I think you are asking too much of Harry, Deb. Remember, he did NOT come to Tower to investigate anything. He was stuck there for all the reasons Sherry mentioned and just witnessed a murder of the person he came to love. So, I would like to ask again. What REASON would he have to think about Snape innocence right after witnessing him killing Dumbledore? Now, some of us do think that it was AK based on the fact that we do not know for sure ALL effects from that spell and that there is very limited evidence in canon that it is possible to say the Unforgivable and mean another spell. So, it is not as clear, no? But even if it was not AK. The most important piece of evidence Harry sees is that Dumbledore is dead and Snape killed him. I think it would be wierd to start wondering about the innocence of the killer if the loved one is killed in front of one's eyes. I know I would not be doing that and I am in my early thirties, not sixteen. Oh, I am also a lawyer as well. :-) Now, if LATER someone will bring to me the evidence of the innocence of such person, then YES, I would be acting like an idiot if I would disregard then and still I would be too personally involved, so I would just give those evidence to police, you know. Now, most likely that it would be up to Harry to find out for sure whether Snape is guilty or not, but I definitely do not expect him to start doing it minutes after Albus' death. Now, would Harry be more suspicious if he saw the person he likes and trusts killing Albus? It is possible of course, I myself would have more trouble believing that something was up if we saw say Lupin doing the deed. :-) But if that is so, then Snape brought it upon himself, he nursed and cultivated Harry's hatred of him. He has nobody to blame but himself if Harry would be suspicious of him even when he would see mitigating evidence, IMO. JMO of course, Alla. From feenyjam at msu.edu Thu Sep 22 13:29:14 2005 From: feenyjam at msu.edu (greenfirespike) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:29:14 -0000 Subject: Snape- Simply a pawn? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140631 Quick Silver wrote: > In the endless debates about Snape I don't think I've ever heard the > idea that Snape is really just a pawn. Few people seem to have > considered the idea that it is Voldemort whose hand may have been > moving Narcissa, Bellatrix, Peter, Draco, and Snape. > > What if Voldemort had at some point realised Snape repentence and, > instead of killing him, simply decided that Snape could still be of > use to him. Voldemort doesn't only use "bad" people he also uses > the "good". > > Draco is given a mission that is sure to send his mother, Narcissa, > into a panic (and that everyone doubts Draco can do). Narcissa then > turns to Snape, the only person she "trusts" at Hogwarts. Along with > Narcissa is Bellatrix, who happens to be able to hide her thoughts > from Snape, who justs happens to serve as bonder. Once the > Unbreakable Vow is complete Snape is bound to his task (assuming of > course there is no way out of a UV). > > It's happened before in the HP novels: in CoS Riddle waited on Harry > to find his way to the Chamber, in PoA Peter played off an amazing > ploy to get himself as secret keeper, and in OotP Harry is used to > het the prophecy despite it being easier for Voldemort to get it > himself. Snape has been fooled before, by Sirius Black none the > less, so it can happen. Isn't it interesting that Peter may have > known how the Prank was pulled off? > Greenfirespike says: I like your theory, but my concern with it relates to LV knowing Snape is a spy. As HPB and CoS show, DE are more than willing to take matters into their own hands (or at least the Malfoys are willing). Thus, there doesn't seem to be a good way for LV to keep some information from Snape. Which of course leads me to the great question oft discussed here...who aside from Harry, DD, and Regulus (and his partner...) knows about the Horcruxs... Many, myself included, think that Snape must know (either from his DE activities, or from helping DD after the ring was destroyed). GFS From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Thu Sep 22 13:32:02 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:32:02 -0000 Subject: Snape vs Wormtail - Life Debt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140632 > > Alla: > > Is it clear though that someone can choose to ignore Life debt? We > have Peter in GoF drawing blood from Harry, true, but we also have > Peter asking Voldie to use someone else other than Harry. > > Granted, he is not very ... persistent, in protecting Harry, should I > say, BUT he tries, sort of, so I think it is plausible to assume that > some sort of actions may follow if you don't honor the Life debt. > Those actions may not be automatic - as if you fail to protect the > person, you die, but some sort of consequences may still follow, IMO. > So what you are saying is that Peter was being affected by the life debt, when he suggested that Voldemort spare Harry. BUT, this was overridden by Peter's underlying personality flaws e.g. his weakness, his cowardice. Which was exactly the case with Snape!! His underlying personality trait i.e. his honour caused him to save Harry, when he really didn't have to!! > > Alla: > > This is one of the interpretations - that he does the honorable > thing, the one I sort of shared prior to OOP. > > Another one would be that his life debt get transferred to Harry ( > someone put nice theory about it) and he IS obligated to protect > harry or something will happen to him. :-) > When I am presented with these queries, I often ask myself how it ties in with JKR's writing. And more importantly if the reason for a particular individual's behaviour isn't obvious, then just how will it be explained at a later date. In PS/SS DD says at the end that Snape saved Harry so he could feel like he had paid back James i.e. that he could feel he had honoured the life debt. The other alternative is that Snape had only saved Harry because the life debt had transferred from James to Harry, and Snape was protecting himself as much as Harry. It simply gets too convoluted for JKR to easily explain his behaviour from this point. And since the life debt has been repaid, there also seems to reason for JKR to refer to this incident again. IMO, this act has to be taken at face value. I don't think JKR would expect us to deduce a more complicated explanation for this behaviour, when there is no further evidence to support this. Brothergib From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Thu Sep 22 14:43:36 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:43:36 -0000 Subject: Stupidity of my last posts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140633 Elyse here, who previously wrote something about Harry being attacked during summer holidays > > Kaylee: Sorry to disagree, Elyse. Harry was attacked on Halloween. Elyse: Oops! Youre right, I totally forgot about the bit in PS where Hagrid tells Harry he was attacked on Halloween. Thanks Geoff for bringing up the canon. (Will proceed to headdesk immediately) > Elyse wrote: > And as a side thought, I think it was a sort of fitting punishment > that James, who was a bully, died to save his son, and in the > process left him to be bullied and abused, not by Snape, > but by the Dursleys for ten long years. > ibchawz responds: If I understand what you are saying here, you think it is fitting and proper that Harry should be bullied since his father was a bully. I just can't agree with Harry paying for the "sins of the father". Elyse again: I'm really really sorry about that. That was never what I meant. I was in no way supporting the 'Sins of the Father' type of logic. I was being very careless with words, and I assure you my ears have been stuck in the oven and my hands ironed for that stupid paragraph. What I really wanted to comment on was the *irony* of the situation. It struck me as ironic that James was a bully and it was his son who was being bullied by the relatives he was placed in care of. I should never have written it that way. It was supposed to come out like : >And as a side thought, I think it was a sort of *ironic* > that James, who was a bully, died to save his son, and in the > process left him to be bullied and abused, not by Snape, > but by the Dursleys for ten long years. Once again, really sorry about that. Elyse From sherriola at earthlink.net Thu Sep 22 14:54:36 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 07:54:36 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks Snape is guilty? Was: Why wizards are so i In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002d01c5bf85$8e2f7e80$bc21f204@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 140634 > Deb again: > I don't disagree with you Sherry about what Harry had just gone > through... but that is the whole point. > And as to what a cop would make of that scene on the tower... well > a rookie would probably react as Harry did ... but if a seasoned > veteran were in Harry's place, I think he or she would be observing > and comparing his observations with everything he knows about magic, > about the people involved, about everything he or she has learned in > a career ... and I think such a veteran cop might just say "hummmm > something does not add up here. Something about this does not ring > true... all is not as it appears to be". And though Harry is just > shy of 17, he certainly is more of a "seasoned veteran" in the fight > against LV and the DEs than any of his peers and many of his friends > who are older than he is. He has defied LV 4 or 5 times already and > no one prior to him has done so more than three times (other than > perhaps DD). Alla: I think you are asking too much of Harry, Deb. Remember, he did NOT come to Tower to investigate anything. He was stuck there for all the reasons Sherry mentioned and just witnessed a murder of the person he came to love. So, I would like to ask again. What REASON would he have to think about Snape innocence right after witnessing him killing Dumbledore? Now, some of us do think that it was AK based on the fact that we do not know for sure ALL effects from that spell and that there is very limited evidence in canon that it is possible to say the Unforgivable and mean another spell. So, it is not as clear, no? But even if it was not AK. The most important piece of evidence Harry sees is that Dumbledore is dead and Snape killed him. I think it would be wierd to start wondering about the innocence of the killer if the loved one is killed in front of one's eyes. Sherry adds: Thanks, Alla, you said a lot of what I wanted to say in response. I'd like to add some comments on Harry's emotions. Many people bring this up saying that Harry must control his emotions if he is able to defeat Voldemort. However, speaking as someone who is ruled by emotions with a bit of logic thrown in, logic that has only grown in me as I've been an adult, not when I was a teenager, JKR seems to indicate that Harry's emotions are his strengths. If not, then I'd think Hermione should be the hero, though she can get ridiculously emotional at times, too. But we've learned that occlumency isn't going to be important for Harry because he's too emotional to do it. It was his heart, his love for Sirius that drove out Voldemort at the end of OOTP. Not some great power or logic or rational thought. Dumbledore has seemed to indicate that Harry's power that the dark lord knows not the power that will eventually defeat Voldemort is Harry's ability to love. Again, a very strong and absolutely not rational emotion, no matter what kind of love it is. He, Dumbledore, didn't take any time in HBP to teach Harry spells or logic or how to control those emotions. Instead, he took time to teach Harry to feel a little compassion for baby Tom. Interesting. If Dumbledore thought Harry's needs for defeating Voldemort would be in the sense of calm and logic and wizard power, I think his private lessons with Harry would have been much different. I say, go for it with the emotions, let his heart and gut instinct guide him. In the RW, most people in fields such as law enforcement, the ones who are good at it, often start with a hunch and then have to find the evidence that will prove or disprove it. Harry will have to go with his gut and his heart, and if there has to be evidence to prove or disprove, he'll have to learn to recognize it. But he won't be able to do that till the grief settles down. Since I do not believe that Snape didn't AK Dumbledore, I think Harry is perfectly right to believe what he does. I've read the same evidence everyone else has, and I've come to a different conclusion than the good Snape people. I'm no more an idiot than Harry. Call it, going on my emotions and my gut instinct. sherry From sherriola at earthlink.net Thu Sep 22 15:04:33 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:04:33 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: <016301c5bf1b$3b3c31b0$2c60400c@Spot> Message-ID: <003101c5bf86$f1e92b00$bc21f204@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 140635 SisterMagpie: I remember pre-OotP actually describing Snape much the same way as Ceridwen is, actually. Not as the Good Son, but by saying that I thought Snape probably resented the fact that he did lots of dirty work and all James (and later Sirius) did was die dramatically and was remembered as a great hero, especially when James seemed like he could be a real jerk to Snape. Sherry now: We know that James and Lily defied the dark lord three times, so how can we say that *all* James did was to die dramatically? We have no canon for the part the Potters played in the war. We only know they were loved and respected and that they defied Voldemort three times. i think James must have done a lot more than die dramatically trying to save his wife and son. And on the subject of James being a bully, this question just occurred to me, though I don't know why it occurred just now. How is it that people who defend Snape so vigorously can refuse to admit his terrible bullying of children for years, even giving him the excuse of toughening up the kids, and yet, they can dismiss James as a bully based on one scene from Snape's memory? If I was given repeated scenes of James bullying all the kids in his school it would be more convincing. But one scene doesn't cut it for me. Even the words of Lupin and Sirius seem to indicate that the problems between Snape and James were ongoing and reciprocal. So, just because we haven't seen Snape's part in the bullying or the enmity, does that mean it doesn't exist? i expect it was a lot like the problems between Harry and Draco. But, eventually, something happened to make James a hero, a fighter against Voldemort worthy of the love of the sainted Lily, while Snape became a bitter cruel man who gets his kicks out of bullying children. I'd put my money on James Potter being the better man inside. sherry From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Sep 22 16:20:06 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:20:06 -0000 Subject: Snape vs. James (was re: Prodigal Sons) In-Reply-To: <003101c5bf86$f1e92b00$bc21f204@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140636 > Sherry: > > We know that James and Lily defied the dark lord three times, so how can we > say that *all* James did was to die dramatically? We have no canon for the > part the Potters played in the war. We only know they were loved and > respected and that they defied Voldemort three times. i think James must > have done a lot more than die dramatically trying to save his wife and son. Magpie: Oh yes, I assume he did. I didn't mean to imply this was the objective reality of the situation. I just meant I could easily see Snape, given the way he treats Harry, seeing James' actions as being given more glory than his own, and possibly seeing grandstanding in them as well. Sherry: > And on the subject of James being a bully, this question just occurred to me, though I don't know why it occurred just now. How is it that people who defend Snape so vigorously can refuse to admit his terrible bullying of children for years, even giving him the excuse of toughening up the kids, and yet, they can dismiss James as a bully based on one scene from Snape's memory? Magpie: I admit...I don't know.:-) I've never agreed with the view that seemed to come about after OotP that Snape was a lonely isolated kid who was picked on by James just for being there throughout his years at Hogwarts. James does say to Lily that Snape's crime is "just that he exists," but I don't think that was meant to be the literal truth. James is referring, imo, to all the things Snape does all the time, and fights they've had in the past. As either Sirius or Lupin tells Harry when they talk about the scene, James really hated the Dark Arts. I don't think James ever picked on weaker kids just because they were weaker (nor do I think Snape was always weaker-- he's caught at a disadvantage in this scene). I think the problems between James and Snape absolutely went both ways, and that if Harry had been at school with both of them he might have had far less trouble with the scene in the Pensieve. In fact, I've always thought Draco was the unseen "fourth person" in the Pensieve scene. He's the one who gives Harry the opening to see the memory, and when Harry is horrified at what his father did to Snape he immediately thinks the twins (whom he likes and considers just) would never do that to anyone "not unless they really hated them...or perhaps Malfoy, who really deserved it." People often seemed quick to want to make the parallels clear in that scene--oh, James=Malfoy and Harry=Snape, but I don't think that's true either. There are reflections all over the place, but no exact doubles. In both cases there's years of hate on both sides--and in fact, I think if we were reading the story of the MWPP era, Snape would be seen very much like Malfoy, if a different type of "toe-rag." Actually, one of the things I also liked in HBP were the hints of the totally different perspective the other side might have, like with Myrtle and Kreacher's loving descriptions of Malfoy, and Malfoy telling us about the Vanishing Cabinet from Montague's pov. Harry defends Snape in the form of the HBP as a good guy and begins to see the other Slytherins more like other kids like himself. Before HBP I can't imagine Harry ever looking at Crabbe and Goyle without Malfoy and describing them as looking lonely. Personally, I've always never bought the "toughening up" idea with Snape's bullying. It just reads to me like an elaborate way of turning a bad thing Snape does for reasons all having to do with himself into a good thing that's done in the service of others. I just think it makes more sense canonically, and makes Snape more interesting to me, when he's lashing out at people for his own sake. I do think it's important to understand the motives of the bullies in canon, and sometimes those motives will inspire empathy or even sympathy, but to me that's different than something like this, which changes the nature of the act itself. Sherry: > But, eventually, something happened to make James a hero, a fighter against > Voldemort worthy of the love of the sainted Lily, while Snape became a > bitter cruel man who gets his kicks out of bullying children. I'd put my > money on James Potter being the better man inside. Magpie: That seems to be the idea-I mean, canon seems to say this outright. Though it does raise some problems, because the fact is that James' bullying really did seem to be looked on with indulgence, and it's really hard to compare which is "the better man inside" because the circumstances, histories and personalities of the two men are so different to start with I think it's difficult to compare them that way. Neither man's actions can be completely blamed on outside factors, but to me it just seems more interesting to say that here are these two men, in two situations, with two lives and they're both necessary to the story and interesting/fun/infuriating/valuable in their own way. -m From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Thu Sep 22 17:02:39 2005 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 17:02:39 -0000 Subject: apparition for Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140637 "finwitch" wrote: > I doubt Hagrid has apparition licence. Harry didn't get to begin > training until sixth year and Hagrid was - although unfairly - > expelled on his third year and banned from using magic. So I'd say > Hagrid does not even know how to apparate. > > As for his getting onto the rock, he tells Harry: 'I flew.' I > speculate it was on the flying Motorcycle Sirius lent him. -aussie/norbertsmummy- I agree apparating is not feasible. Hagrid is animal specialist, so threstals are a big possibility. My favorite theory is the flying carpets mentioned in GOF. - Mr Weasly refuses to re-legalize them, means they exist in the WW. - They were legal when Hagrid was younger. - They would be easier for Hagrid to use than a broom (size wize) - A rug could be folded ans kept under his coat (especially if his pockets are magically enhanced like Ministry cars or Barty's trunk.) After all, JKR had a plan for those flying carpets, or why introduce them? -aussie- From keeley_cargill at yahoo.com Thu Sep 22 14:02:43 2005 From: keeley_cargill at yahoo.com (Keeley CARGILL) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 07:02:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Snape- Simply a pawn? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050922140243.38534.qmail@web34406.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140638 greenfirespike wrote: Which of course leads me to the great question oft discussed here...who aside from Harry, DD, and Regulus (and his partner...) knows about the Horcruxs... Many, myself included, think that Snape must know (either from his DE activities, or from helping DD after the ring was destroyed). Keeley: I think a few Death Eaters know. In the graveyard GOF doesn't Voldemort speak about those that "knew to what extent he'd gone down to the path to immortality"? - Something like that anyway - haven't got the book to hand. Keeley From Nanagose at aol.com Thu Sep 22 18:04:53 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:04:53 -0000 Subject: Snape vs. James (was re: Prodigal Sons) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140639 >SisterMagpie: > >...I thought Snape probably resented the fact that he did lots of >dirty work and all James (and later Sirius) did was die dramatically >and was remembered as a great hero, especially when James seemed like >he could be a real jerk to Snape. >Sherry now: > >We know that James and Lily defied the dark lord three times, so how >can we say that *all* James did was to die dramatically? Christina: We're not saying it, but I'm sure that Snape does. We know he harbors a great resentment towards James. We know that one of these sore points is that Snape thinks that James was arrogant. The good things that James has done are well known. It is the secretive nature of Snape's double agent position that prevents any recognition of the good things (or things that he personally sees as good) that he has done. I doubt Snape sees this as fair, which probably has only fueled his hatred of James, and Harry as well, since Snape thinks that he is just like his father. Interestingly enough, a sentiment people seem to agree with, if in different ways. > Sherry: > > > And on the subject of James being a bully, this question just > occurred to me, though I don't know why it occurred just now. How > is it that people who defend Snape so vigorously can refuse to admit > his terrible bullying of children for years, even giving him the > excuse of toughening up the kids, and yet, they can dismiss James as > a bully based on one scene from Snape's memory? > Christina: I'll be the first to admit that Snape can be a big, giant bully. It's in the books- it's pretty impossible to deny. The problem is, while we have completely canon evidence that *both* James and Snape were bullies at one point or another, the HP universe treats them completely differently. Snape is actively disliked (Harry, Sirius) or tolerated (Hermione, Lupin), while James is *revered* (by every single character that knew him, except for Snape of course). Now I'll be the first to say that James's defeat of the Dark Lord three times *is* heroic, and he obviously grew out of his bullying stage since Lily decided to marry him and Dumbledore made him Head Boy (Snape must have been *livid*), but I don't think that anyone is "dismissing James as a bully." This wasn't just one scene. Lupin and Sirius's conversation strongly suggests (if it doesn't outright say) that James's (and Sirius's too) bullying of Snape was *habitual*. Lupin says straight out that by 7th year, James had stopped "hexing people just for the fun of it," which suggests that Snape wasn't his only target. >Sherry: >But one scene doesn't cut it for >me. Even the words of Lupin and Sirius seem to indicate that the >problems between Snape and James were ongoing and reciprocal. Christina: I agree that Snape probably sent back his share of curses, but I still think that *back then*, James was worse. First of all, we know that at least once, James initiated hostilities between himself and Snape (unlike Harry, who usually waits until Malfoy has said or done something bad to go after him). When Harry points out that his father went after Snape for "no good reason," Sirius says that he wasn't proud of his actions. That gives me the impression that James's picking on Snape was a common thing. I think it's pretty clear from the pensieve scene that Snape isn't too well-liked (Harry notices this too), and James's bullying method of choice (this time at least) makes it, in my opinion, especially awful. Of course, James grew out of his little bullying streak (mostly, at least), while Snape grew up to be a bitter adult who picks on children. I don't think many people on this list would go as far as to say that Snape's bullying is great while James's was Oh-So-Horrible. I know I wouldn't. I think what you're seeing is more of a knee-jerk reaction, a "Huh?" sort of moment when those of us that think that Snape is still good (or was good at one point) realize that James is treated as a Man-God in Potterville, while everyone seems to hate Snape. It just doesn't seem right. However, since JKR could literally do practically anything with Snape's character at this point, speculation about the meaning and severity of James's and Snape's bullying is sort of futile (but fun!). Christina From sherlockholme_ac at rediffmail.com Thu Sep 22 18:21:31 2005 From: sherlockholme_ac at rediffmail.com (chinchorkar) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:21:31 -0000 Subject: apparition for Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140640 > "finwitch" wrote: > > I doubt Hagrid has apparition licence. Harry didn't get to begin > > training until sixth year and Hagrid was - although unfairly - > > expelled on his third year and banned from using magic. So I'd say > > Hagrid does not even know how to apparate. > > But then, the restriction is on age, so I think he could have learnt it even after getting expelled. I don't think there is restriction that you should be going to school. Also, forgive me if this is mentioned before (I don't eant to read the entire thread again)... but is it not mentioned in the SS/PS that he disappered from near Harry, or is it a movie recollection? (Sorry, I don't have my books at hand. Amey From strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca Thu Sep 22 18:49:15 2005 From: strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca (strawberryshaunie) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:49:15 -0000 Subject: apparition for Hagrid Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140641 Amey wrote: "But then, the restriction is on age, so I think he could have learnt it even after getting expelled. I don't think there is restriction that you should be going to school. Also, forgive me if this is mentioned before (I don't eant to read the entire thread again)... but is it not mentioned in the SS/PS that he disappered from near Harry, or is it a movie recollection? (Sorry, I don't have my books at hand." Sorry, don't have my books handy but I definitely remember Harry trying to watch Hagrid in the distance as he was leaving after their trip to Diagon Alley together. Something about Harry turning to watch him leave but "Hagrid had already gone"...? From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Sep 22 19:20:03 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 19:20:03 -0000 Subject: Last of the heirs? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140642 I've been reading almost every post for over a month and didn't see this topic, but all the usual apologies if it's repetitive. So JKR thinks Dumbledore's family would be a 'profitable line of inquiry'. I've been drawing a blank so far; except for Aberforth and new information about DD being mostly self-taught, there's little to go on. But then reading COS, it ocurred to me Harry will undoubtedly vanquish the last Heir of Slytherin in Book 7, and if the last Heir of Gryffindor is also gone, what would that mean for the split in the WW started by Godric Gryffindor and Slytherin? JKR dismissed the heir of Gryffindor idea as it pertains to Harry, but not Dumbledore (in my mind at least). We have evidence, most as old as the list itself, that Dumbledore is from the Gyrffindor line. Like the griffin-door knocker on the headmaster's office and the fact Lily and James were hiding out at Godric's Hollow (even more likely now to be DD's home, since we know the Potters aren't heirs). Then DD is in possession of the sword and a red/gold phoenix. Each of these things can be explained away individually, but together they say something about the man, I think. I'd even add DD's watch, and the one he possibly gave to the Weasleys for Ron, as likely-to-be-revealed evidence of DD's heritage. So if both heirs are gone, will that finally lay rest to the feud and the split between the houses, which symbolize the split in the WW? >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. If neither line exists anymore, perhaps it will be healed. Jen From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Thu Sep 22 21:05:09 2005 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:05:09 -0000 Subject: Last of the heirs? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140643 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > I've been reading almost every post for over a month and didn't see > this topic, but all the usual apologies if it's repetitive. > > So JKR thinks Dumbledore's family would be a 'profitable line of > inquiry'. I've been drawing a blank so far; except for Aberforth and > new information about DD being mostly self-taught, there's little to go on. **snip** > So if both heirs are gone, will that finally lay rest to the feud and > the split between the houses, which symbolize the split in the WW? > 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. If neither line exists anymore, perhaps it will be healed. > > Jen Doddie here: If DD is the heir of gryphindor, then so would be his brother Aberforth. Perhaps this it was Slytherins mistake to leave. Perhaps Salazar thought he would take his house with him...but he was wrong. JKR tells us that the houses are representative of the four elements, earth, air, fire, water.. You cannot simply remove an element...they all must exist simultaneously together...somethimgs they come together, sometimes not, sometimes water and earth may come together, or fire/air..or any combination there of. DD was was probably the greatest head master because of his understanding of alchemy... It is the potential of what actually could/would be accomplished if all houses/elements unite together that keeps all four houses intact. This is why Voldemort would prize/seek out artifacts from each house to create a horcrux. (a fire horcrux, air, earth, water)..In Voldemorts mind this would make his horcruxes more powerful. (seven....one for each element...etc.) I hope I'm making a little bit of sense here. Sorry...I am in a hurry. Doddie (who wonders about slytherin/hufflepuff coming together and making mud) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Sep 22 21:40:12 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:40:12 -0000 Subject: apparition for Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140644 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "strawberryshaunie" wrote: > Sorry, don't have my books handy but I definitely remember Harry trying > to watch Hagrid in the distance as he was leaving after their trip to > Diagon Alley together. Something about Harry turning to watch him leave > but "Hagrid had already gone"...? Geoff: I covered this eventuality in message 140584 which I posted yesterday as part of my discussion on Hagrid's activities. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Sep 22 22:06:42 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 22:06:42 -0000 Subject: The Powerful Slytherin (Re: Snape/Harry coincidence?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140645 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > Harry's freshness with adults is a defense mechanism he has > learned in dealing with dumb Uncle Vernon. He's a child > protecting himself against hostile adults who wish him harm. Up > to the exchange in the DADA class, all of Harry's interactions > with Snape partake of this kind of defensiveness, IMO. > The "There's no need to call me 'sir',Professor." has a different > ring to it. It's much more grown-up. Jen: I was thinking their power balance started to shift as early as the end of OOTP, when Snape happened upon Harry and Draco holding their wands on each other, and Harry said he was deciding which curse to use on Draco. In that moment, Harry didn't care about points taken, detentions, snide comments or any of Snape's past power over him. houyhnhnm: > Snape's reaction is very mild. "said Snape" Snape doesn't usually > 'say'. He 'sneers'; he 'smirks'; he 'spits'. He is treating Harry > more like an adult in this exchange, it seems to me. I have the > inward conviction that he was repressing a smile. Jen: I wonder if Snape's shift was actually a change in Harry's POV? Snape had his own problems to worry about and didn't seem to have Harry on the top of his list anymore. Harry would naturally see a change from previous years, even though it's doubtful he'd actually *analyze* it or even conciously think about it. So we didn't find out much, and then the eavesdropper reveal happened. We'll never know what might have happened if Harry found out Snape was the HBP before he found out he was the eavsdropper! houyhnhnm: > Like I said this doesn't change the trajectory of their > relationship in book 6. It doesn't seem to retard the escalation > of their mutual hatred. Maybe it helps to lay the groundwork for > a more adult relationship between them in book 7. I can't imagine > how it will work out plotwise, though. Jen: Harry really related to the HBP. If there's any way he's going to connect with Snape again, maybe the book will play a role. The HBP was someone Harry's age, who made up some clever spells and was interested in improving potions. Everyday sorts of activities. The Sectumsempra was a hint of Snape turning to dark magic, but I'd love to see what was in the rest of the book--did it get darker or were there other things that may be of interest to Harry at a later date? houyhnhnm: > The analysis of what Harry learned from Draco was very interesting, > BTW. It wasn't anything I'd thought of before, but it rang true. Jen: Oh, good. It was hard to divorce what Draco was doing from *how* he was doing it, and how the process changed him. The instinct is to leap immediately to what the outcome of his work was (not a bad thing to analyze, but I wanted to look at a different aspect). Jen From msbeadsley at yahoo.com Thu Sep 22 22:07:28 2005 From: msbeadsley at yahoo.com (msbeadsley) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 22:07:28 -0000 Subject: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: <016301c5bf1b$3b3c31b0$2c60400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140646 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" wrote: > Mrsbeadsley wrote: First off, my handle is Ms., not Mrs., Beadsley; please make a note of it. ;-) > Actually, I can't resist pointing out not that MWPP bullied in one > scene, but that in a post about the meaning of the Prodigal Son and > how Snape could never be the Good Brother you're, uh, playing part > of the Good Brother. That is, feeling satisfaction at the idea of > Snape, Draco or Dudley getting their comeuppance--exactly what the > Good Son was presumably counting on when his brother came home. > Instead he was welcomed back with a feast and a fatted calf for > dinner. :-) This is rather personal, isn't it? Sorry if I got under your skin. And I rebut: unlike Elder Brother, I am not asking for or expecting anything for myself. My sense of and longing after what I perceive to be justice is not predicated upon any notion that *I* am better or more deserving than Draco, Snape, or Dudley (tho' Harry is, absolutely ); if I had done the things they have, I'd deserve punishment as well. On the occasions when I have behaved like them (and there have been a few), I've taken my lumps. And I prefaced my comments by saying outright I was not angelic. Perhaps JKR will take some or all of these three characters through grace and obviate the need for punitive measures, and perhaps she will do it in such a way that I and others are satisfied. Perhaps we will become privy to details of their histories and find that we sympathize and can chalk up their bad choices and evil deeds to poor environmental conditions, or failed nurture. As the story stands at the moment, however, I have a hunger I am not at all abashed by to see these three take some well-deserved knocks where we can see them. IMO, it would be instructive to them and also would go some distance to earning my sympathy as well. On the other hand, we have seen Harry knocked about thoroughly since the very first (second, if you don't count the off-screen orphaning) chapter. I'm on his side (bearing my D'oh (Defender of Harry) shield...wait, is that another list? proudly). Harry is the orphaned hero; he bears the mantle (inherited Invisibility Cloak) and the sword (Gryffindor's, in the Chamber); he carries a wound, as does Arthur, King of the Britons, and is destined to wear a crown; it may be one of thorns, but the only one the story will contain is his. BTW, I am both Eldest and Prodigal in my family, although daughter instead of son. My younger brothers have been prodigal as well; we take turns wearing the black sheepskin. As I am eight years older than the firstborn of the family's two sons, I'm afraid I influenced them awfully. ;-) One more point: I am utterly convinced that, literarily, Snape is deliberately written in manner that means we love to hate him. (JKR has described him as "deeply horrible" and "sadistic" and fun to write. Hmmm?) I'm convinced he's (rather wretchedly) on the side of good; he's the anti-hero (and I'm having trouble recalling many stories which offer both a hero and anti-hero, piling on to my admiration for JKR); the "anti-" is why we hate him, and the "-hero" is why we love, or love to hate him. > I remember pre-OotP actually describing Snape much the same way as > Ceridwen is, actually. Not as the Good Son, but by saying that I > thought Snape probably resented the fact that he did lots of dirty > work and all James (and later Sirius) did was die dramatically and > was remembered as a great hero, especially when James seemed like he > could be a real jerk to Snape. At the time people thought that was > ridiculous--how could James be a jerk? But I thought the way MWPP > treated Snape in the Pensieve was already laid out for us through > the Map in PoA. I guess within the scene it seems like they're > sticking up for Harry against Snape the teacher, but I assumed that > this was just the way they spoke to him all the time. Although I wasn't here pre-OotP and missed your description, I have read similar musings and don't actually have a problem with this. (Pause for reader jaw-raising.) I had a problem with Snape as Good Son in the parable because it just didn't work for me. I think that if we add "Wrong-Side-of-the-Tracks" Snape (chimney sweep to indolent, entitled young Lords Fauntleroy Sirius and James) to "Mad Scientist Snape" (that burning desire to know how and why; IMO, Snape wants to control processes, not people) we could easily explain how he got to be "Double (or Triple) Agent Snape." I like your explanation for the Map's response to Snape; I had always figured it would defend itself against *anyone* who tried to pry into its secrets absent the password, but the personal nature of its response fits very well. On the other hand, it's the same old story of Snape snooping, busily ferreting out miscreants as if he had a divine mandate (at least somewhat supportable in his role as teacher), as the Map's comment about his nosing illustrates. Nobody likes a tattletale or a crybaby (sniveller); it's just human nature. (I know, having gone through childhood phases of both which were brought sharply back to me in June when I spent out-of-state time with a particular 8-year-old niece (now in tattling phase; I told her to "go *write it down,* as we shall undoubtably want to refer to it later") everyone says is "just like her Aunt Sandy.") I was in accord with the rest of what you wrote, so snipped it. Sandy aka msbeadsley From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 22 22:54:24 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 22:54:24 -0000 Subject: The Powerful Slytherin (Re: Snape/Harry coincidence?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140647 > >>Jen: > I could be reading too much into HBP, but while the core of > the story was Riddle's history and the Horcruxes, woven into the > background was the subtle story of Harry's struggle with his > Slytherin tendencies and lessons learned from very unlikely > sources. > Betsy Hp: I don't think you're reading too deeply. (Or if you are, then I am too. ) Because I agree that HBP had a lot to do with Harry realizing his inner Slytherin. I loved that Slytherin house was finally given a very human face. > >>Jen: > > [Harry] was completely right Draco was up to no good, but he > didn't realize part of his obsession was watching Draco move on > without him. Draco gave up his boyhood pursuits--Quidditch, > harassing Harry, being Snape's favorite--to take on a man's job. > Betsy Hp: It's interesting how quickly the change occurred for Draco, too. He was so childish, compared to Harry, for the last few books, and suddenly he leaped ahead. And I think the same thing happened to Harry this year. The death of Sirius started the change (Harry realized he didn't have the time to wallow in adolescent angst), and I think the death of Dumbledore completed it. Harry is even willing to put his vendetta against Snape on hold so he can accomplish his task of finishing Voldemort. That's a remarkable change, IMO. (It's a mark of maturity Sirius was never able to achieve, unfortunately.) > >>Jen: > Seeing Draco crying in the bathroom & casting the Sectumsempra > jolted Harry out of his routine, but even then, Snape saved him > from his consequences. Everything changed for Harry the night of > the cave and tower, though. Ultimately, both boys gave up the need > for father figures altogether and grew into the next generation of > men taking sides in another painful war. > Then there's this tiny problem, or maybe a huge obstacle, called > Snape. > > What does Harry need to learn from Snape? For it seems inevitable > to me this will be the final area of growth for Harry in defeating > Voldemort. Betsy Hp: Potioncat touched on Snape's role as one of Harry's father figures in post #140604. He's the one figure left that Harry has yet to fully understand, IMO. So I think gaining an understanding of the *real* Snape will be very important for Harry's final steps into manhood. I'm not sure how JKR will tie that into the horcrux hunt, but I'm sure she will. I think this goes back to the parallels between Snape and Harry. Until Harry understands Snape I don't think he'll fully understand himself. (If that makes any kind of sense.) > >>houyhnhnm: > I'm not sure in how it points the way to a resolution of the > conflict between Harry and Snape; it doesn't seem to lead to > anything in book 6, but the exhange between the two of them in > DADA struck me as very significant. --------------------------------------- > "Yes," said Harry stiffly. > "Yes, *sir*." > "There's no need to call me 'sir', Professor." > The words had escaped him before he knew what he was saying. > Several people gasped, including Hermione.... > "Detention, Saturday night, my office," said Snape. "I do not take > cheek from anyone, Potter ... not even *'the Chosen One'*." --------------------------------------- > I was one of the ones who gasped. It's smart aleck and funny--the > funniest line in book (next to "Oh, well, that's better than a > whack on the nose with a rusty poker.")-- but it's also the first > time I can think of that Harry responds to Snape in an adult way. > Betsy Hp: Hmmm. I actually saw this as a remnant of Harry's childishness. Snape is trying to teach him to do non-verbal spells, the difference between an adult wizard and a child, and Harry, rather than trying to learn, acts like an adolescent. It *does* show, IMO, that Harry has no fear of Snape. But Harry has had very little fear of Snape from the first book. (Harry goes after Snape for his Quidditch book in PS/SS because he's bored, IIRC. Yet, he and Ron are amazed at Hermione's braveness in talking to McGonagall.) I've no idea what that lack of fear means. It's interesting though, IMO. It *also* shows how unwilling Harry is to listen to Snape. He stops calling him 'sir' in PS/SS. He speaks of Snape "forcing" his class to learn potions (as if learning potions in potions class is totally unheard of). He completely dismisses anything Snape does for the Order or Dumbledore or even Harry himself. Snape is obviously a spy for Dumbledore, Harry knows it, but Harry could care less. Snape directly saves Dumbledore's life, Katie Bell's life, Draco's life (saving Harry from becoming a murderer), and Harry's life, yet Harry gives him no credit. And, from the first book onward, two adults Harry unquestionably trusts (and even loves, I think) tell Harry that Snape is one of the good guys, and Harry utterly dismisses them. Even the weight of Dumbledore's and Hagrid's opinion cannot shake Harry from his conviction that Snape is the sum of everything wrong in the WW. Which is doubly strange when contrasted with his view of the half- blood Prince. When has Harry *ever* connected so completely with a book? He follows the Prince's advice in everything. Even when one of his spells nearly leads to Harry murdering a classmate, Harry defends the Prince. To tie this back in to the parallel between Snape and Harry that the books seem to have drawn, I wonder if Harry doesn't see himself in Snape and not like what he sees? Hmm, I might be taking things too far but...oh what the hell . Snape's contempt for Neville is rather matched by Harry, I think. Harry has always (up to the end of OotP, anyway) seen Neville as somewhat pathetic. I wonder if part of his anger at Snape's treatment of Neville isn't based partially on his own desire to shake the stupid off the boy. Snape expresses frustration at Hermione's know-it-allness; the very same frustration Harry often feels. Harry thinks Snape is far too attached to the dark arts, but Harry seems to be having his own little love affair with the Crucio curse (if at first you don't succeed?). Harry worries that Sirius may be loosing it, Snape quite helpfully proves that he is. > >>Jen: > I think the one Slytherin trait Harry is lacking at the moment is > coming to terms with the idea of power. > > Somehow Harry will have to move from feeling like an underage, > unqualified wizard to the One with the Power. > Betsy Hp: Perhaps, once Harry sees Snape as a whole, sees the good side to the man, he'll recognize the good side to himself? I'm probably not making any kind of sense, but if Snape represents everything Harry fears about himself, maybe confronting those fears will provide Harry with a new understanding of himself. If he finally sees Snape with Lily's eyes (as you spoke of, Jen, in the part I snipped) maybe he'll finally see himself through his mother's eyes too. And that might be where that "power the dark lord knows not" resides. Especially when you see how Voldemort treated *his* father figures. Couldn't kill them fast enough, it seems. And if he couldn't kill them, he ran from them. Betsy Hp, who may or may not, be totally crazy From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 22 23:38:58 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 23:38:58 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's fall from the tower (Was: Why are wizards so incompetent?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140648 > Chys asked: > Why wasn't he splattered against the ground then? This part confused me, he seemed to be whole and resting peacefully at the bottom, when he just fell from the tallest tower. What gives? > It's perfectly argueable that there'd be blood. I just thought more. Carol responds: You're absolutely right. Whether DD was already dead from an AK when he fell, died on the way down of his own volition combined with poison and loss of powers (as his peaceful expression may suggest), or died from the impact with the ground, surely there ought to be more damage than a trickle of blood and his limbs splayed at odd angles. His body should have been broken, or, even, as you say, "splattered" on the ground. (I can't help thinking of the people who jumped from the Twin Towers on 9/11 though of course their fall was longer than his.) Instead we have "Dumbledore's eyes were closed. But for the strange angle of his arms and legs, he might have been sleeping." His spectacles have slipped off his nose, but they're not broken. Harry straightens them, wipes away "a trickle of blood," and "gaze[s] down at the wise old face" (HBP Am. ed. 608-09), still completely recognizable. What's going on here? DD was wandless; he can't have used a spell to slow his own fall. Yet he has landed exactly like a rag doll dropped from the top bunk of a child's bunkbed. And "rag doll" is indeed the simile used as he slips over the tower wall: "For a split second, he seemed to hang suspended beneath the [Dark Mark], and then he fell slowly backward, like a great rag doll, over the battlements and out of sight" (596). As many posters have noted, it takes a while for Harry to be released from DD's freezing spell, long enough for Snape to order the DEs out and for all six people other than DD and Harry to vanish out the door. If the spell were an AK, Harry would have been instantly released as it hit Dumbledore. Almost certainly, then, DD isn't dead as he goes over the battlements. And the fall takes longer than it should. Whether DD dies in mid-fall or when he hits the ground, too much time passes before the spell is released for the fall to occur at normal speed. Could Snape have cast not one but two silent spells, the first an Impedimenta or some other nonfatal DADA spell (disguised as an AK) to "blast" DD into the air and a second one to slow his fall (something like the unnamed spell DD used to slow Harry's fall in PoA, "Grim Defeat" or even some form of hover charm) and send him floating to the ground like a rag doll? I'm not arguing for this theory, but the near-absence of damage to DD's body after a fall from the highest tower in the castle is (IMO) not natural. (On a side note, we don't know what color the light from an Impedimenta is. It could be green. Not all the jets of green light in the fight between DD and LV in OoP are necessarily AKs. Most can't be identified because they're nonverbal. Another side note--Snape's Expelliarmus in CoS, with its flash of scarlet light, is a lot more spectacular than any others we've seen, even the three combined Expelliarmuses in PoA, which knocked him out only because his head hit the wall. Maybe the Expelliarmus that throws Lockhart off the platform in CoS is combined with some silent spell to give it a little extra flare, erm, flair?) Carol From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 23 01:03:18 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 01:03:18 -0000 Subject: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks Snape is guilty?/Some UV again (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140649 > >>Alla wrote: > > > > Under circumstances I believe he IS acting rationally. Again, he > > may not know the whole story, but I believe it is completely > > rationally for him considering the evidence he has to want to > > avenge Dumbledore's death. JMO, of course. > >>Carol: > > Harry is not employing reason (orderly or logical thinking). He's > employing emotion--his horror at the death of his supposedly > all-powerful mentor and his pre-existing hatred of Snape intensified > by his brand-new discovery that Snape is the spy who informed > Voldemort of the Prophecy that resulted in the death of his parents. > > Harry's reaction is *understandable.* > > But it is not *rational*--and I think JKR has shown with Peter > Pettigrew in PoA that she does not regard revenge as right. Betsy Hp: I think we have a classic Catch 22 situation going on here . It is rational to expect a person in such a situation to act irrationally. Harry is behaving as he should, at this particular point in time. The problem will arise if he *stays* in this mind set. If Harry continues to see only what he wants to see, to ignore information or twist facts to suit his preconceptions then he's going to fail at his mission to hunt down and destroy Voldemort's horcuxes. > >>Carol: > Harry has yet to examine the evidence and employ *reason* to > understand it. Quite possibly he's incapable of doing so, at least > in this instance. But Hermione isn't, and neither is Lupin. I'm > hoping he'll provide them with sufficient details about the events > on the tower and about Snape in general that they will start > questioning what Harry takes for granted. At that point, we'll see > a genuinely rational reaction. Betsy Hp: Hmm. I think, actually, it will be very important for *Harry* to be the one to finally take a good rational look at the tower events. How else will he leave his childhood behind? (The child can afford to be irrational; the man doesn't have that luxury.) This sort of critical thinking is exactly what Dumbledore was teaching Harry in their jaunts through Dumbledore's pensieve. And Harry does seem to have picked up some skill. The more open-minded view he has of Slytherins in general, and Draco in particular, is encouraging, IMO. A rational view of Snape and his role in Dumbledore's death will take more effort on Harry's part, but I think he's up for it. I think all he needs is a good nudge. Petunia Dursley saying something about Lily's friend, Severus, for example. Or maybe some anonymous source Harry hunts down. Or even a letter or bottled memory from Dumbledore. JKR will have to fill us in on Snape's background somehow (the Prank, his leaving the Death Eaters, etc.) and I bet we'll learn more about Snape right alongside Harry. Betsy Hp From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Sep 23 00:22:58 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:22:58 -0400 Subject: Prodigal Sons References: Message-ID: <006c01c5bfd4$f579f670$f898400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 140650 >> Msbeadsley wrote: > First off, my handle is Ms., not Mrs., Beadsley; please make a note of > it. ;-) Magpie: Sorry about that! Msbeadsley: (I just almost wrote that wrong again *knocks head against wall*) > This is rather personal, isn't it? Sorry if I got under your skin. And > I rebut: unlike Elder Brother, I am not asking for or expecting > anything for myself. My sense of and longing after what I perceive to > be justice is not predicated upon any notion that *I* am better or > more deserving than Draco, Snape, or Dudley (tho' Harry is, absolutely > ); if I had done the things they have, I'd deserve punishment as > well. On the occasions when I have behaved like them (and there have > been a few), I've taken my lumps. And I prefaced my comments by saying > outright I was not angelic. Perhaps JKR will take some or all of these > three characters through grace and obviate the need for punitive > measures, and perhaps she will do it in such a way that I and others > are satisfied. Magpie: Oh no, it didn't get under my skin, and I wasn't trying to make any kind of personal remark. I really did just see something to comment on about the things described in the post and used it as a jumping off point, I didn't mean to be any kind of comment or judgement on you personally. Sorry if I made you feel you had to defend yourself that was completely not my intention. It's true I don't read any of the bully characters in canon and want to see them punished, but I think that's strictly about reactions different people have to fictional characters--not any comment on one's moral fiber or anything. It's just that this subject seems to be one that is dealt with in canon--there's so many bullies and victims who become bullies and people dealing out justice or needing justice it seemed like an on topic subject. With Draco, actually, I think he is punished in canon throughout the series, so it does tend to surprise me when people say they are waiting for him to be punished. He takes his lumps a lot--which is not to say that he's a victim and everyone should just feel sorry for him whatever he does. It's just I thought Draco's story was exactly the kind of thing I'd prefer to have done with the character as punishment, if that's the right word. I think there are hints that JKR may see it that way, given her "I always knew this was coming for Draco" and "the darkness is coming" remarks. To me the sort of thing he's going through now is more grueling, painful and likely to change him than many other forms of comeuppance might be. That's the reason I loved the idea of Regulus even back in OotP where all we knew was that he joined the DEs, realized what it really meant, and was killed for trying to leave. When a character "deserves" the horrible situation they're in I feel for them more acutely, whereas some people find comeuppance more satisfying. With Snape, without knowing some of the things about him, I can't say for sure what will make him change or not. In general he seems like such a miserable person who makes himself miserable I never think about wanting to see him punished. When he bullies Neville or Harry, for instance, I want him to stop for Neville's sake and his own sake, but I don't want to, for instance, see somebody bullying him. That actually does probably spill over into real life, but I can't consider it a moral issue because it's not a struggle. It's just not where my mind goes. I mean, I want satisfaction from the text as much as anyone, it's just different people may imagine satisfaction coming in different ways. I can't really see Snape lasting beyond Book VII, and if that's the case it seems like he'd have spent his whole life torturing himself (and others). Msbeadsley: > One more point: I am utterly convinced that, literarily, Snape is > deliberately written in manner that means we love to hate him. (JKR > has described him as "deeply horrible" and "sadistic" and fun to > write. Hmmm?) I'm convinced he's (rather wretchedly) on the side of > good; he's the anti-hero (and I'm having trouble recalling many > stories which offer both a hero and anti-hero, piling on to my > admiration for JKR); the "anti-" is why we hate him, and the "-hero" > is why we love, or love to hate him. Magpie: Yes, I agree that does seem to be the way he's written, and I tend to lean towards anti-hero as well, as opposed to villain. Msbeadsley: > I like your explanation for the Map's response to Snape; I had always > figured it would defend itself against *anyone* who tried to pry into > its secrets absent the password, but the personal nature of its > response fits very well. Magpie: Yes, it's odd that I just kind of immediately thought this was the way they talked to him when it could just as easily have been the way the Map would speak to anyone doing what Snape was doing. But now that we know the truth it's all the better to think the Map would be naturally charmed to deal with *Severus* snooping, since he always would have been at the time the Map was made. And as I said in another post, I do think that Snape aggressively annoyed MWPP while at school, so it wasn't a case of them just picking on him because he was ugly. -m From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 23 02:10:27 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 02:10:27 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's fall from the tower (Was: Why are wizards so incompetent?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140651 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol responds: > You're absolutely right. Whether DD was already dead from an AK when > he fell, died on the way down of his own volition combined with poison > and loss of powers (as his peaceful expression may suggest), or died > from the impact with the ground, surely there ought to be more damage > than a trickle of blood and his limbs splayed at odd angles. His body > should have been broken, or, even, as you say, "splattered" on the > ground. (I can't help thinking of the people who jumped from the Twin > Towers on 9/11 though of course their fall was longer than his.) > > Instead we have "Dumbledore's eyes were closed. But for the strange > angle of his arms and legs, he might have been sleeping." His > spectacles have slipped off his nose, but they're not broken. Harry > straightens them, wipes away "a trickle of blood," and "gaze[s] down > at the wise old face" (HBP Am. ed. 608-09), still completely > recognizable. > > What's going on here? Marianne: IMHO people may be making too much of how battered, bloodied and mangled DD's body should have appeared due to a combination of a long fall and whatever curse Snape may have hit him with. I firmly believe JKR didn't want to confront Harry and us with a mangled corpse or one with a rictus of fear or pain. She wanted to send DD off into the great beyond looking as peaceful as possible under the circumstances. This fits with the words she has already spoken through DD's mouth - "death is the next great adventure." It is not something to be feared or dreaded. It's where we go when we shuffle off this mortal coil. I think the simple picture of his glasses being just a bit askew for Harry to fix was the final gesture of the hero arranging the body of his ultimate mentor for the mentor's next great journey. OTOH, since JKR is not great at math, perhaps she's not a whiz at physics, either. And, maybe all the Snape fans out there can use this as further evidence of Snape's ultimate tender feelings about DD. He really didn't mean that AK he uttered - he used the "Push Off a Great Height Curse" combined with a "Soft Landing on Hard Ground Charm" just so DD didn't end up looking like the unassembled pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Marianne From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Sep 23 01:59:08 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 01:59:08 -0000 Subject: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks Snape is guilty?/Some UV again (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140652 > Betsy Hp: > Hmm. I think, actually, it will be very important for *Harry* to be > the one to finally take a good rational look at the tower events. > How else will he leave his childhood behind? (The child can afford to > be irrational; the man doesn't have that luxury.) Oh, I don't know. We haven't seen Snape being rational the entire series where Harry or Lupin or James are concerned. Of course, Snape isn't really an adult, IMO, so if we want to say he's an example of a 40 year old snivelling child, I think you are on to something here. Betsy Hp: This sort of > critical thinking is exactly what Dumbledore was teaching Harry in > their jaunts through Dumbledore's pensieve. And Harry does seem to > have picked up some skill. The more open-minded view he has of > Slytherins in general, and Draco in particular, is encouraging, IMO. Lupinlore: Where do you see this open-mindedness? Harry is horrified at what happens to Draco after the Sectumsempra spell, but continues to insist that Draco is guilty and is proven absolutely correct. I don't see much evidence of open-mindedness toward Slytherins in general, although if you want to count the Prince, I'll let you have that one. Certainly he has no open-mindedness toward Snape at the end of the book -- and neither does anybody else at Hogwarts that we can see, Hagrid's initial protests notwithstanding. Betsy Hp: > > A rational view of Snape and his role in Dumbledore's death will take > more effort on Harry's part, but I think he's up for it. I think all > he needs is a good nudge. Petunia Dursley saying something about > Lily's friend, Severus, for example. Or maybe some anonymous source > Harry hunts down. Or even a letter or bottled memory from > Dumbledore. JKR will have to fill us in on Snape's background > somehow (the Prank, his leaving the Death Eaters, etc.) and I bet > we'll learn more about Snape right alongside Harry. > Lupinlore: If I had to bet money, I'd be pretty comfortable saying your not going to get your way on this one, Betsy. Harry may end up with a different view of Snape, but I can't imagine it will occur because a nudge makes him rethink what happened on the tower, in large part because there isn't much, IMO, about what happened on the tower to rethink. I can't think of a single shred of evidence from that scene that a real world policeman, judge, or jury would accept as pointing toward Snape as "Not Guilty" in the case of the murder of Albus Dumbledore, even if said policeman, jury, and judge knew as much about the Wizarding World as we and Harry (or as McGonnagall, Lupin, Hermione, Ron, Tonks, and the Weasleys, all of whom seem to regard Snape as obviously guilty). Even allowing Snape all the constitutional rights Sirius was denied, all the evidence we have from that scene and from what Harry or anyone else knows is solidly for "Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." As JKR has said, it's now personal between Harry and Snape on a level it has never been before -- even more personal than it is between Harry and Voldemort. At this point, a revelation that Lily and Snape were friends would likely only magnify Harry's fury even further -- Snape would be that much WORSE of a traitor. Any "rethinking" of Snape will have to be based on some VERY big and VERY solid evidence. Documents or pensieve memories left behind by Dumbledore would be a possibility. So would Fawkes if he ends up going to Snape (which I rather doubt, I suspect he'll find his way to Harry after he's had a chance to shed some Phoenix tears and spend some time with his Mom in the ol' nest behind the sun). I don't see, barring breathtakingly bad writing on JKR's part (which she has, unfortunately, proved herself capable of with such, err, stuff, as "Sirius wouldn't want me to brood so I won't" and "Mary Jane ... I mean Ginny ... I have to go fight Doc Ock ... I mean Voldemort ... first") how a slight nudge followed by rethinking of the tower scene could ever do the trick. Oh, and I don't think Snape's patronus would be of any help in this situation. McGonagall, Lupin, Hagrid, and others would already be familiar with it, and nothing about it caused them to go "Oh no, Harry, Snape couldn't have killed Dumbledore. You see his patronus proves that's impossible." Lupinlore From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 23 02:23:32 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 02:23:32 -0000 Subject: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks Snape is guilty/Harry's grief for Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140653 Lupinlore: I don't see, barring > breathtakingly bad writing on JKR's part (which she has, > unfortunately, proved herself capable of with such, err, stuff, > as "Sirius wouldn't want me to brood so I won't" and "Mary Jane ... I > mean Ginny ... I have to go fight Doc Ock ... I mean Voldemort ... > first") how a slight nudge followed by rethinking of the tower scene > could ever do the trick. Alla: I agree with you completely that only very big and solid evidence could make Harry change his mind about Tower, therefore I snipped it completely. :-) What I have to disagree with you on is the side issue - I think JKR handled Harry's grief for Sirius not just well, but superbly. Subtle grieving does not become any less intense because it is subtle, IMO. Harry was not eating when he was at Dursleys, he does not want to talk about Sirius with his friends, he is having trouble talking to Tonks, he lashes at Fletcher when he learns about selling Sirius' stuff and then remembers that Sirius hated then anyway. I loved it, absolutely loved it. As to Harry's trying to be a hero for Sirius' sake, well that is who Harry is, IMo. He is a hero, so it makes sense that he tries to behave like one ( luckily it does not happen all the time, otherwise his charm of normal boy,who is also a hero would be sort of lost on me :-) Lupinlore: Oh, and I don't think Snape's patronus would > be of any help in this situation. McGonagall, Lupin, Hagrid, and > others would already be familiar with it, and nothing about it caused > them to go "Oh no, Harry, Snape couldn't have killed Dumbledore. You > see his patronus proves that's impossible." Alla: That I am with you 100%. They all know his Patronus and they still turn on him in a minute. I somehow doubt that they would have done so if Snape Patronus had any relation to Dumbledore. I definitely read that scene with the certain amount of glee. :-) JMO of course, Alla. From Meliss9900 at aol.com Fri Sep 23 03:51:54 2005 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 23:51:54 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why are wizards so incompetent? /Evil Overlords/ Some... Message-ID: <59.30848a8a.3064d5da@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140654 In a message dated 9/22/2005 3:54:58 AM Central Standard Time, maliksthong at yahoo.com writes: Chys: Why wasn't he splattered against the ground then? This part confused me, he seemed to be whole and resting peacefully at the bottom, when he just fell from the tallest tower. What gives? Simple. Once again the answer, IMO, is artistic license. I doubt that JKR wanted to write about Dumbledore's mangled body at the foot of the Tower any more than I wanted to read about it. In that respect I'll leave the realism to Patricia Cornwell. Melissa [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Sep 23 07:43:58 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 07:43:58 -0000 Subject: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks Snape is guilty/Harry's grief for Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140655 > Alla: > > That I am with you 100%. They all know his Patronus and they still > turn on him in a minute. I somehow doubt that they would have done > so if Snape Patronus had any relation to Dumbledore. > I definitely read that scene with the certain amount of glee. :-) > Pippin: http://www.mugglenet.com/jkr-royalalbert.shtml but from now on at least everybody knows he's been telling the truth so whatever he has to face, he doesn't have to deal with everyone being so mistrustful of him. ---- There you have it from Jo -- nobody wants Harry to think they don't trust him. They really can't afford to, can they? I mean, they're expecting him to take on this horrible dark wizard for them, being the Chosen One and all that -- it really wouldn't do for them to imply that he's mistaken. They know what he went through in fifth year and they're doubtless all still feeling guilty that they couldn't or didn't do more to help then. The least they can do is accept what he says now. So things are a little easier for Harry on that account. Uh-oh. Things really aren't supposed to be easy for Harry, are they? We don't need heroes to do the easy stuff. He's not supposed to be doing what's easy. He's supposed to be doing what's right. So if Harry is wrong, he's going to have to figure it out by himself, one way or another. And you are right, Lupinlore, damn straight Harry has gotten off easy with his grief for Sirius. He hasn't faced up to his feelings of guilt, which are in their turn a mask. It's always easier to feel guilty than helpless. He's doing something I've seen men do in real life, IMO, putting his feelings aside because he thinks they'll get in the way and there's a job to be done. But it won't work. He's going to have to face up to his helplessness, or he'll never be strong enough to defeat Voldemort. You can't grow strong unless you're willing to admit that you're weak, just like you can't learn unless you're willing to admit there's stuff you don't know. Pippin From jmoses22002 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 23 11:24:04 2005 From: jmoses22002 at yahoo.com (jmoses22002) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:24:04 -0000 Subject: Hagrid in GH (and Harry at PD) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140656 wrote: snip > The second point - about Harry - arises from the fact that Harry was > 15 months old when Godric's Hollow was attacked. He was not a baby, > but most likely a toddler. The great majority of children are able to > get around by this age. On the way, he was awake until they reached > Bristol but possibly quiet and Hagrid did have him in his arms but > what about when Dumbledore placed him on the doorstep? I have doubts > whether a toddler of 15 months placed in this situation would > normally remain tucked up and asleep for several hours which > apparently was the case with Harry. > > Did Dumbledore cast some sort of sleeping spell on him to prevent him > crawling off to explore the garden? jmoses now: I don't think Dumbledore put a spell on him. Just think about it. Harry fended off a powerfull curse. Maybe he was it tired him out. JMHO. - Dumbledore could have put the spell on him for his own protection though of course. From dc.thorburn at ntlworld.com Fri Sep 23 12:47:30 2005 From: dc.thorburn at ntlworld.com (Derek Thorburn) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:47:30 +0100 Subject: Chapter 1 of HBP Message-ID: <000301c5c03c$f75dd660$3e781652@thorburn> No: HPFGUIDX 140657 I noticed in a previous post that disappointment was expressed about Chapter 1 of HBP. However, I must admit, I thought it was superb, though I can understand how people feel about a chapter not from Harry's eyes beginning the book - I felt the same when I listened to GoF after Christmas last year. However, I think what I like about it is the fact that you get to have a llook at things from the muggle Prime Minister's eyes. I really like the way it starts with him worrying about what's been going on over the week, then from the portrait which he's never been able to remove comes the announcement of a meeting with Fudge. When Fudge arrives, a very worried man himself, the Minister's mind goes back to all of Fudge's other visits and at the end of every one, the Minister is still confused. Can we blame him for shouting "Now, just a minute" when Fudge pays him a flying visit of just seconds to tell him that a group of people calling themselves death eaters have just broken out of a secure prison? After this quick replay, we come to the more up to date meeting. I also like it because, though we hear in PoA that Fudge has spoken to the muggle Minister about the escape of Sirius, we get a more deeper insight into that meeting. Derek From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Sep 23 13:23:11 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:23:11 -0000 Subject: Snape's patronus in Book 7 (Re: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks .....) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140658 > Lupinlore: > > Oh, and I don't think Snape's patronus would > > be of any help in this situation. McGonagall, Lupin, Hagrid, and > > others would already be familiar with it, and nothing about it > > caused > > them to go "Oh no, Harry, Snape couldn't have killed Dumbledore. > > You see his patronus proves that's impossible." > Alla: > That I am with you 100%. They all know his Patronus and they still > turn on him in a minute. I somehow doubt that they would have done > so if Snape Patronus had any relation to Dumbledore. > I definitely read that scene with the certain amount of glee. :-) Jen: Things are different now, though. For one thing, we don't know if someone who murders can cast a patronus. Snape could contact the Order with his patronus and it will be a clue that an outright murder, generated by hatred or enjoyment of killing, did not happen on the tower. Another possibility, we just found out a patronus can change. How convenient! Order members would be quite surprised if Snape's patronus has changed form and reflects his loyalty to Dumbledore. Jen From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 23 13:50:49 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:50:49 -0000 Subject: Snape's future (Was: Snape's other books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140659 SSSusan wrote previously: > >OTOH, I still can't quite imagine Snape abandoning Draco. He might > >not keep him with him long while he's on the run "I could see him > >arranging for his safe deposit *somewhere* -- but I can't imagine > >his lugging Draco along with him. The only way I think Snape would > >stay with Draco long is if they both end up hiding at the Malfoys'. Saraquel: > I've been rereading `Flight of the Prince" and there is no evidence > given about whether Snape actually disapparated with Draco or not. > It could be that as soon as the 3 DEs and Draco got beyond the > boundaries they disapparated without waiting for Snape ? so there > is a possibility that Snape and Draco have already been separated. > > Whatever happened at that point, and even if Snape is ESE or has > decided to still continue as a spy (both of which I doubt) I can't > see them hiding at the Malfoy's. The boardwalk (does this mean > under the floorboards?) was searched wasn't it, by Arthur Weasley? SSSusan: Coming up for air, *finally,* I saw this question of yours, Saraquel. Yep, when I said "under the boardwalk," I meant beneath the Malfoy floorboards. Not sure why the hell I phrased it that way. Just got that John Mellencamp "Under the Boardwalk" song in my head and it wouldn't go away. ;-) ANYWAY... on to my real point. What I found interesting was my reaction to your comment that Snape & Draco might already have separated, since there's no actual evidence that they disapparated together. I found myself thinking, "Well, that might have happened *if* Draco knew and trusted those other three DEs and elected to go with them, but that's the *only* way it would have happened." Now, why was my reaction that strong, I wonder? I mean, sure, I'm a believer in DDM!Snape... I'm a "He's a sadistic git but he's still on the side of good" kind of gal... but I find that NO MATTER WHICH side I imagine Snape to ultimately be on, I still can't imagine him abandoning Draco at that moment. Partly it's the Unbreakable Vow and the promise he made to Narcissa to watch out for Draco. Partly it's that I think he has watched Draco all 6 years he's been at Hogwarts. But I think, truthfully, it's also partly that, for all his horribleness, I think Snape typically DOES try to protect his students. Am I nuts there?? Is there anybody else who, along with me, has difficulty imagining Snape sneering, "You're on your *own* now, Draco. Arrivederci." and disappearing by himself? Somehow I just can't picture him leaving Draco until he was sure he was at least safe for the moment. Wow. Noble!Snape? Am I deluding myself? Siriusly Snapey Susan From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Fri Sep 23 14:02:52 2005 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:02:52 -0000 Subject: Chapter 1 of HBP In-Reply-To: <000301c5c03c$f75dd660$3e781652@thorburn> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140660 --- "Derek Thorburn" wrote: > I noticed in a previous post that disappointment was expressed about Chapter 1 of HBP. However, I must admit, I thought it was superb, though I can understand how people feel about a chapter not from Harry's eyes beginning the book ... > > However, I think what I like about it is the fact that you get to have a look at things from the muggle Prime Minister's eyes. I really like the way it starts with him worrying about what's been going on over the week, then from the portrait which he's never been able to remove comes the announcement of a meeting with Fudge. When Fudge arrives, a very worried man himself, the Minister's mind goes back to all of Fudge's other visits and at the end of every one, the Minister is still confused. Can we blame him for shouting "Now, just a minute" when Fudge pays him a flying visit of just seconds to tell him that a group of people calling themselves death eaters have just broken out of a secure prison? After this quick replay, we come to the more up to date meeting. ... > > Derek -aussie- >From a literary point of view, JKR has to bring new readers up to date if they start at HBP. So the PM and Vernon help play catch up for late comers. (It would spoil earlier books if they want to go back and read them later, but...) JKR is drawing together all the loose cords preparing for book #7. We may get clues then, about what things from past books are going to be relavant for Book 7 by looking at what late comers were introduced to. Suggestions please:- From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Fri Sep 23 14:12:50 2005 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:12:50 -0000 Subject: Snape's future (Was: Snape's other books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140661 --- "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > SSSusan wrote previously: > > >OTOH, I still can't quite imagine Snape abandoning Draco. He might > > >not keep him with him long while he's on the run "I could see him > > >arranging for his safe deposit *somewhere* -- but I can't imagine > > >his lugging Draco along with him. The only way I think Snape would > > >stay with Draco long is if they both end up hiding at the Malfoys'. > > > Saraquel: > > I've been rereading `Flight of the Prince" and there is no evidence > > given about whether Snape actually disapparated with Draco or not. > > > It could be that as soon as the 3 DEs and Draco got beyond the > > boundaries they disapparated without waiting for Snape ? so there > > is a possibility that Snape and Draco have already been separated. > > > > Whatever happened at that point, and even if Snape is ESE or has > > decided to still continue as a spy (both of which I doubt) I can't > > see them hiding at the Malfoy's. > > > SSSusan: > > What I found interesting was my reaction to your comment that Snape & > Draco might already have separated, since there's no actual evidence > that they disapparated together. I found myself thinking, "Well, > that might have happened *if* Draco knew and trusted those other > three DEs and elected to go with them, but that's the *only* way it > would have happened." > > Now, why was my reaction that strong, I wonder? ... NO MATTER WHICH side > I imagine Snape to ultimately be on, I still can't imagine him > abandoning Draco at that moment. Partly it's the Unbreakable Vow and > the promise he made to Narcissa to watch out for Draco. Partly it's > that I think he has watched Draco all 6 years he's been at Hogwarts. > But I think, truthfully, it's also partly that, for all his > horribleness, I think Snape typically DOES try to protect his > students. > > Wow. Noble!Snape? Am I deluding myself? -aussie- Snape delayed his return to LV for 2 hours with an excuse. There would be no excuse this time. Both Draco and Snape would want to report on DD's death and claim credit for their part in it. I just wonder if LV had alternative reasons for getting Draco to AK (tear his soul) other than just get DD out of the picture. If U-No- Poo had another purpose, the report may make him angry. -aussie- From fuzzlebub85 at aol.com Fri Sep 23 14:56:56 2005 From: fuzzlebub85 at aol.com (fuzzlebub85 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 10:56:56 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's future (Was: Snape's other books) Message-ID: <1c6.319b4ee9.306571b8@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140662 (snipped both Saraquel's post and SSSusan's previous comment) Kaylee: Hello! I think I'll join in here. I do so love discussing stuff with the esteemed Captain of the DRIBBLE SHADOWS, you know. My Captain. ^.^ SSSusan: Coming up for air, *finally,* I saw this question of yours, Saraquel. Yep, when I said "under the boardwalk," I meant beneath the Malfoy floorboards. Not sure why the hell I phrased it that way. Just got that John Mellencamp "Under the Boardwalk" song in my head and it wouldn't go away. ;-) Kaylee: *amused* Is that the one they play for the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk commercials? It is, isn't it? I wonder if Snape took Draco to the beach...oh, wait, can Snape handle sunlight and can Draco handle all the girls in bikinis? *smirk* Sorry I didn't add any canon here...I'm rambling...But anyway, SSSusan, I knew what you meant the whole time. Though it was a funny picture... ANYWAY... on to my real point. Kaylee: Real point? But other stuff is so fun to talk about... What I found interesting was my reaction to your comment that Snape & Draco might already have separated, since there's no actual evidence that they disapparated together. I found myself thinking, "Well, that might have happened *if* Draco knew and trusted those other three DEs and elected to go with them, but that's the *only* way it would have happened." Kaylee: You know, there *isn't* any actual evidence, is there? I don't think Snape would have left Draco alone though...he (Draco) evidently didn't trust Fenrir Greyback at least, and with good reason...*shudder* (Especially if you believe the werewolf!Draco thing...) Now, why was my reaction that strong, I wonder? I mean, sure, I'm a believer in DDM!Snape... I'm a "He's a sadistic git but he's still on the side of good" kind of gal... but I find that NO MATTER WHICH side I imagine Snape to ultimately be on, I still can't imagine him abandoning Draco at that moment. Partly it's the Unbreakable Vow and the promise he made to Narcissa to watch out for Draco. Partly it's that I think he has watched Draco all 6 years he's been at Hogwarts. But I think, truthfully, it's also partly that, for all his horribleness, I think Snape typically DOES try to protect his students. Kaylee: *waves a DDM!Snape flag* All very good points, O Captain, my Captain, and I believe he does try to protect his *own* students. Harry and Neville...well, maybe. I know he saved Harry more than once though that could have just been his repay-life-debt thing, and Neville at least once ("Crabbe, loosen your hold a little. If Longbottom suffocates..." It was Crabbe, wasn't it? Or was it Goyle? *doesn't have OotP on her*) So yes, I think everything's pretty well thought out here. Am I nuts there?? Is there anybody else who, along with me, has difficulty imagining Snape sneering, "You're on your *own* now, Draco. Arrivederci." and disappearing by himself? Somehow I just can't picture him leaving Draco until he was sure he was at least safe for the moment. Kaylee: *howls with laughter* Aside from the ridiculous image of SNAPE saying "Arrivederci", I can't picture it anyway. Thanks, though, now I have yet another ridiculous image to add to Snape and Draco Under the Boardwalk...*giggling madly* Wow. Noble!Snape? Am I deluding myself? Kaylee: I don't think so. But we'll see. I hope. Siriusly Snapey Susan Kaylee Tonks-Lupin, sorry for the Walt Whitman reference but she's doing her poetry HW at the minute...and has a test on Monday. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From muellem at bc.edu Fri Sep 23 15:28:01 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:28:01 -0000 Subject: Snape's future (Was: Snape's other books) In-Reply-To: <1c6.319b4ee9.306571b8@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140663 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, fuzzlebub85 at a... wrote: > (snipped both Saraquel's post and SSSusan's previous comment) > > Kaylee: Hello! I think I'll join in here. I do so love discussing stuff with > the esteemed Captain of the DRIBBLE SHADOWS, you know. My Captain. ^.^ > > SSSusan: > Now, why was my reaction that strong, I wonder? I mean, sure, I'm a > believer in DDM!Snape... I'm a "He's a sadistic git but he's still on > the side of good" kind of gal... but I find that NO MATTER WHICH side > I imagine Snape to ultimately be on, I still can't imagine him > abandoning Draco at that moment. Partly it's the Unbreakable Vow and > the promise he made to Narcissa to watch out for Draco. Partly it's > that I think he has watched Draco all 6 years he's been at Hogwarts. > But I think, truthfully, it's also partly that, for all his > horribleness, I think Snape typically DOES try to protect his > students. > > colebiancardi here: I agree with that statement. Although this is not in the books, JKR instructed Alan Rickman to *protect* the trio when Lupin turned into a werewolf in PoA. That speaks volumes about his character, I believe. Snape does try to protect his students from any lasting harm - he may be sarcastic and nasty, but he has never *physically* harmed his students(unless you call the throwing Harry out of his office & the dead cockroach jar indicident harming). > > Am I nuts there?? Is there anybody else who, along with me, has > difficulty imagining Snape sneering, "You're on your *own* now, > Draco. Arrivederci." and disappearing by himself? Somehow I just > can't picture him leaving Draco until he was sure he was at least > safe for the moment. > > Kaylee: *howls with laughter* Aside from the ridiculous image of SNAPE > saying "Arrivederci", I can't picture it anyway. Thanks, though, now I have yet > another ridiculous image to add to Snape and Draco Under the > Boardwalk...*giggling madly* colebiancardi: hmmmm.thoughtfully....I actually CAN see Snape saying Arrivederci - seems logical to me that Snape could say that - smoothly, silkly and very cooly. > > Wow. Noble!Snape? Am I deluding myself? > > Kaylee: I don't think so. But we'll see. I hope. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Well, Snape may think of himself as *noble*. I think some of his actions point to that as well. colebiancardi (now it WOULD be funny if Snape told Draco "Hasta la vista, baaby) From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Sep 23 15:06:25 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:06:25 -0000 Subject: Snape's patronus in Book 7 (Re: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks .....) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140664 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > > Jen: Things are different now, though. For one thing, we don't know > if someone who murders can cast a patronus. Snape could contact the > Order with his patronus and it will be a clue that an outright > murder, generated by hatred or enjoyment of killing, did not happen > on the tower. Well that's an interesting question. If murder tears the soul and it takes a full soul to make a patronus, this might make sense. But that assumes facts not in evidence, and if it is true would lead to all sorts of logical problems and plot holes. Indeed, if producing a patronus requires mostly just "positive" emotion and one gets great enjoyment and satisfaction out of killing, then I can see killers being capable of producing very powerful patronuses. Snape was a DE for years and still capable of producing a Patronus. If he could still produce one after betraying Harry's parents and doing dark and evil things for Voldemort (and I really don't see him just sitting in his little hole making pretty potions for Daddy Riddle), I don't see why anyone would be surprised that he is still able to make one after one more betrayal and murder. After all, an out-and-out nutcase like Bellatrix can still perform Occlumency -- another branch of magic deeply dependent on emotion and control thereof. Granted, the magic of Occlumency and of the Patronus engage emotion in a different way, but both involve repression/blocking/overcoming of negative feelings in order to protect yourself. Engaging in dark and evil deeds doesn't appear to have much effect of emotion-based magic in the Potterverse. Patronuses are supposedly resistant to dark magic. But is a patronus produced by a joyful memory of killing dark magic or light magic? The joy and satisfaction are there, after all. We don't know enough about dark magic to answer. And frankly, I don't think JKR has things that worked out. So, at the moment, I stand by my contention that unless we are told major new information - some of which would raise plot holes and contradiction such as why his career as a DE doesn't render Snape "apatronic" - there is nothing about Snape's patronus that will help. > > Another possibility, we just found out a patronus can change. How > convenient! Order members would be quite surprised if Snape's > patronus has changed form and reflects his loyalty to Dumbledore. > Yes, but how would they know it's Snape's patronus if it's changed? Is there a way of identifying patronuses even when they are changed? Had Snape seen Tonks's wolf-patronus before and just not commented on it, or did he have some way of knowing who had sent it even if it had changed? Once again, that assumes all sorts of facts about patronuses that aren't in evidence. Also, when asked about Snape's patronus before HBP JKR said she wouldn't reveal it because it would give too much away. That implies something about Snape's patronus BEFORE the events on the tower -- unless you are wanting to postulate that JKR is being slipshod with language and forgetting that although it might be "after HBP time" for her it is still "before HBP time" for her listeners. That's possible, but doesn't strike me as likely in this case. It is much more plausible that JKR meant exactly what she said, that Snape's patronus AS OF THE TIME OF THE QUESTION, i.e. pre- HBP, would give too much away. But whatever that "too much" is, it can't be anything that would point strongly to Snape's innocence, as Lupin, McGonnagall, et. al. are familiar with the patronus from Order business and don't bring it up as strong evidence against Snape's guilt. We can also postulate, as Pippin does, that McGonagall and Lupin do believe the patronus is evidence against what Harry has said but hesitate to bring that up because they feel sorry for Harry, etc. I don't find that very plausible, either. For one thing, it seems like they are saying "Well, Snape is innocent but we'll let Harry (and Harry's friends) vendetta against him even though Harry has an uncomfortably strong record of defeating opponents who ought to wipe the floor with him. After all, if Harry manages to kill Snape in the process, it isn't like we liked him much anyway." It makes them more Machiavellian, and frankly more intelligent and competent, than we have any evidence for them being. Even if they were tempermentally inclined to such action, Hagrid is too loose-mouthed, Lupin too passive and reactive, and McGonagall too much of a psychological ignoramus to ever pull it off. Lupinlore From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 23 17:03:09 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:03:09 -0000 Subject: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks Snape is guilty?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140665 Well let's see, Harry saw with his own two eyes Snape blast a helpless and very nice old man off a tower to his death, and he saw a look of "revulsion and hatred etched in the harsh lines of his face" when he did it. So is Harry an idiot because he thinks Snape is guilty? No. Eggplant From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 23 17:05:15 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:05:15 -0000 Subject: Snape's future (Was: Snape's other books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140666 SSSusan wrote: Partly it's > that I think he has watched Draco all 6 years he's been at Hogwarts. > But I think, truthfully, it's also partly that, for all his > horribleness, I think Snape typically DOES try to protect his > students. > > Am I nuts there?? Is there anybody else who, along with me, has > difficulty imagining Snape sneering, "You're on your *own* now, > Draco. Arrivederci." and disappearing by himself? Somehow I just > can't picture him leaving Draco until he was sure he was at least > safe for the moment. > > Wow. Noble!Snape? Am I deluding myself? Potioncat: Snape has been watching out for Draco for 6 years. No doubt about that. He's also been watching out for all his students, (IMHO) all along. There have been some gaps...not sure what JKR's doing there...but he has been protective of the students. To review: Snape sent Draco ahead of him; Snape was chased off grounds by Witherwings; Harry believed Snape had Apparated because Witherwings was hovering around the area. We don't know whether anyone had waited for Snape, nor where they would go. Do DEs lay low until summoned by LV or do they report to HQ? If Draco was still there, I would guess that Snape would want to talk to him before they reported to LV...provided there was time. If they did report to LV I think Snape would spin a new web to the best advantage. Keep in mind DDM!Snape is now protecting Draco and the Order. That can't be easy! Also, Draco is no longer a child; he's a young man. DD was offering sanctuary to Draco and his family. Did Snape know that? Could it still be done? If Book 7 starts off with the news that Draco and Narcissa have been killed, don't believe it. From vadwe at yahoo.com Fri Sep 23 15:55:58 2005 From: vadwe at yahoo.com (vadwe) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:55:58 -0000 Subject: RAB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140667 Does anyone ever question if RAB isn't necesarily Regulus? I really don't comprehend how a 17-19 year old could have been so close to Voldemort to discover the truth about the horcruxes, let alone figure out where the cave was (he'd had to know about Voldemort's past as Tom Riddle, know that he went on holidays from his orphanage and such, to find where it is, etc. etc.) Unless, of course, VM took Regulus with him to the cave for some reason, which I extremely doubt because I just can't see VM doing that. Regulus could have followed VM, I suppose, but how and without VM noticing, I don't know. And did Regulus do the old switcharoo while being in with the DE and then deserted, or did he manage it after he deserted. I don't think he lasted very long. DId VM know that Regulus was after the horcruxes? If so, wouldn't he have gone back to make sure they are all doing just fine? He would have discovered the fake locket. I do think that maybe it wasn't Regulus who found the horcrux and switched it, maybe it was Alphard Black, who perhaps has a first name of Rastaban, or Rigel, or even Rana. I would buy it being someone older, more experienced in magic and dark arts, who managed to thwart VM plans and Alphard left the locket to Sirius within his inheritance. But these are my own ramblings of course. Regulus has things going for him, like the fact that he was "in too deep" and that's why he was done in by VM himself (I can't remember if that's how it happened) and, Dumbledore's comment that Voldemort wouldn't expect an underage or undeveloped wizard to attempt to make it across the lake, therefore his magical signature is not detected does allow the posibility for Regulus to get on that boat and make it across the lake. Even more with the speculation that it was Kreacher who helped Regulus do the deed probably fits with the 'he won't be detected thing' 'cause VM would never think a house elf to try and steal the locket. It's so fun to think of all the 'what ifs' Vadwe. From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Fri Sep 23 17:45:53 2005 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 10:45:53 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Chapter 1 of HBP In-Reply-To: <000301c5c03c$f75dd660$3e781652@thorburn> References: <000301c5c03c$f75dd660$3e781652@thorburn> Message-ID: <10110115263.20050923104553@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140668 HBP Ch. 1 also controverted certain lines of fan speculation about the structure of Government in WW, such as that the MoM was a member of the Muggle Cabinet, etc. I like Ch. 1 especially for the uncanny job she does in describing the current mood in the world, at least as I see it and I guess she does too -- Nervousness, pessimism, etc. The only difference is that in the Potterverse it's because of Voldemort + Dementors, and for us it's "War on Terror" + Iraq + lots of other things. -- Dave From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Sep 23 18:21:42 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:21:42 -0000 Subject: The Powerful Slytherin (Re: Snape/Harry coincidence?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140669 (Replies to Saraquel and Betsy Hp here) Saraquel: > Harry has not yet understood, as DD has understood, the power that > resides within him and its uniqueness. Yes, Jen, no need to > wonder where I'm going back to on this one :-) I think that you > are right about the examples of power that have been in Harry's > life and his rejection of them on the one hand, but resorting to > those same dark magic powers on the other when he is threatened or > feels powerless. Because, I don't think he dares to trust to > love, and has no concept of what love really might be, or what its > power might be. Jen: We've devoted ourselves to an entire threads on the power Harry has, and it's more confusing than ever. Now I know how Harry feels! Dumbledore seemed to be saying Harry has never been tempted by evil, so there must be something still to come--what would Harry's weakness be, his anger toward Snape? The dark curses? You get the feeling he has something left to overcome because he *doesn't* understand love. Saraquel: > There is only one place that Harry is going to be able to see the > power of love in action and understand what it is, and what it > means and that is GH. But in a sense, Harry already > knows what happened, he knows that his mother's love caused an AK > to rebound, but he cannot have any real concept of how or why it > happened. I think that the protection of Lily's love is > an actual something that is in Harry, and that Harry will see that > power enter him when his mother dies. This is the only > place he will be able to get proof that love alone saved him from > the AK. Jen: This is really lovely. Sometimes I forget how our abstract feelings can have a magical equivalent in the WW. Lily must be the remaining person who has something very important to teach Harry. I'm tending toward her over Snape now, because of what you said here. The outcome will relate to Snape, but perhaps the learning part won't. Saraquel: > Having power is such a scary thing. To have power without love, > and no sense of good and evil, is to have power without > responsibility, which is what Voldemort has and it leads only to > pain. I must admit, that I have always found it somewhat > unbelievable that Voldemort has any followers whatsoever, the way > he treats them. We have yet to see Voldemort, showing anything > other than cruelty. As Riddle, we saw him exert his charm, but > that seems to have gone now. Jen: More than an insignificant number of DE's still believe Voldemort's agenda is purification of the WW. Dumbledore and Harry know it's actually his obsession with immortality, but I think many see him as a vehicle for their own agenda. Dangerous if they ever figure out his real quest. Saraquel: > For Harry, who has a very deep sense of responsibility, power is a > very frightening thing. To wield power, is to make decisions > which have consequences. We have already seen him struggling with > this. > Harry was terrified of the use of his power with the sectumsempra > spell. His remorse was palpable. And here we are again, back to > choices! Harry has to learn to trust his own judgement. > But we are watching Harry edging towards taking out > Snape. Even if you believe Snape is ESE, does that give Harry the > right to pass judgement on him and take him out at the next > opportunity? For most of us Snape is ambiguous. Jen: No, he absolutely can't take matters into his own hands here. He'll come to that, it's just who he is. We may be back to what will tempt him though, and it looks like righteous fury. Harry *so* has the right to want to see Snape dead, especially after he found out about his parents. It's a dead-end though, it's what would tip the scale and move him down the path....gosh, you know what I just wondered? I started to say he would move down the same path Snape did, and caught myself wondering, why *did* Snape move in that direction? He and Harry weren't so different when Snape was the HBP. Something changed for him--was righteous fury his motivation as well? Betsy Hp touches on this, so I'll cut her in here: > Betsy Hp: > Which is doubly strange when contrasted with his view of the half- > blood Prince. When has Harry *ever* connected so completely with > a book? He follows the Prince's advice in everything. Even when > one of his spells nearly leads to Harry murdering a classmate, > Harry defends the Prince. > > To tie this back in to the parallel between Snape and Harry that > the books seem to have drawn, I wonder if Harry doesn't see > himself in Snape and not like what he sees? Hmm, I might be > taking things too far but...oh what the hell . Jen: I don't think you're going too far ;). If JKR truly does like Jung and incorporates his work in HP, then I see Snape as being Harry's Shadow-self, the part of himself he rejects and projects on to Snape, mainly. Harry truly hates Draco and sees few redeeming qualities because they are so different, but he and Snape aren't so far apart. They are both different from the other students, both understand what it feels like to be bullied (canon from OOTP), both know what an emotionally impoverished home feels like (assumption there), and most important, both are trusted by Dumbledore. The HBP wasn't so different from Ron & Harry--weren't most of those potion enhancements and spells 'pretty cool' more than scary or evil? Personally, I think Hermione was wrong about the HBP and doesn't 'get' him. We've seen her do this with Quidditch, too, there are things she dismisses because she doesn't understand their value. Betsy Hp: > And, from the first book onward, two adults Harry unquestionably > trusts (and even loves, I think) tell Harry that Snape is one of the > good guys, and Harry utterly dismisses them. Even the weight of > Dumbledore's and Hagrid's opinion cannot shake Harry from his > conviction that Snape is the sum of everything wrong in the WW. Jen: I forgot about Hagrid, although his loyalty to Snape is a bit questionable seeing as he thinks DD can do no wrong. Still, he's maintained his same stance for 6 books now and had the most doubt about what happened in HBP. Betsy Hp: > Snape's contempt for Neville is rather matched by Harry, I think. > Harry has always (up to the end of OotP, anyway) seen Neville as > somewhat pathetic. I wonder if part of his anger at Snape's > treatment of Neville isn't based partially on his own desire to > shake the stupid off the boy. Snape expresses frustration at > Hermione's know-it-allness; the very same frustration Harry often > feels. Harry thinks Snape is far too attached to the dark arts, > but Harry seems to be having his own little love affair with the > Crucio curse (if at first you don't succeed?). Harry worries that > Sirius may be loosing it, Snape quite helpfully proves that he is. Jen: This is curious to me. I see elements of what you say here in Harry, maybe not to the same extent you do, but it makes me wonder again why their paths diverged so radically. I *really* don't see evidence in the books that Snape's love of the dark arts was the primary factor leading to Voldemort. If so, JKR wouldn't have had Hermione compare Snape's opening day DADA speech to Harry's DA lessons! If she wants us to see their differences, why give us so many similarities? I'm sure that's a rhetorical question for you :). Well, unless she really is going for the idea Snape took that road and is still *on* that road, and Harry's Herculean task will be to keep from following. > Betsy Hp: > Perhaps, once Harry sees Snape as a whole, sees the good side to the man, he'll recognize the good side to himself? I'm probably not > making any kind of sense, but if Snape represents everything Harry > fears about himself, maybe confronting those fears will provide > Harry with a new understanding of himself. If he finally sees > Snape with Lily's eyes (as you spoke of, Jen, in the part I > snipped) maybe he'll finally see himself through his mother's eyes > too. And that might be where that "power the dark lord knows not" > resides. Especially when you see how Voldemort treated *his* > father figures. Couldn't kill them fast enough, it seems. And if > he couldn't kill them, he ran from them. Jen: Maybe I've jumped too quickly into the "Harry left behind his father figures" boat, because this rings true for me. Harry will either see the good in Snape, or the dark in himself, or both at essentially the same time. What you're saying here relates to Saraquel's thoughts above, I think. (Well, thanks you guys for helping me sort this out a bit! I'm sure some other sparks of thought will keep this going for another what, year and 9 months or so?!?) Jen From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Sep 23 18:54:53 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:54:53 -0000 Subject: RAB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140670 vadwe wrote: > Does anyone ever question if RAB isn't necesarily Regulus? zgirnius: Interesting theories proposed on this list post HBP (not by me!) include: One of the two kids Tom tormented in the cave. If I recall that post correctly, one even had a B last name... What if she was adopted, went to Hogwarts under a different name, and wanted revenge? Amelia Bones. Assuming she has a hideous first name she hates, and so goes by the middle name. Borgin, of Borgin & Burkes, the Knockturn Alley store. (Burke's first name is known to be Caractacus, so he does not fit). Sorry, too lazy to wrestle Yahoomort for post numbers... vadwe: > Regulus could have followed VM, I > suppose, but how and without VM noticing, I don't know. zgirnius: If RAB is Regulus, this seems a reasonable scenario, that he followed Voldemort. How about Kreacher? We know Kreacher and Dobby could spy on Draco unnoticed. Yes, Draco is not in LV's class as a wizard, but I thihnk house-elves have a magic that lets them get around unseen as they do their chores... vadwe: > And did > Regulus do the old switcharoo while being in with the DE and then > deserted, or did he manage it after he deserted. I don't think he > lasted very long. DId VM know that Regulus was after the horcruxes? If > so, wouldn't he have gone back to make sure they are all doing just > fine? He would have discovered the fake locket. zgirnius: I think it was Regulus. The language of the note suggests to me both that the writer was a Death Eater (addresses Voldemort as Dark Lord) and the writer expected to die soon. He wanted to leave the Death Eaters, but he knew that Voldemort was going to have him killed if he did. So he somehow learned of the Horcrux, and resolved to destroy it as a sort of "advance" revenge on Voldemort. Which Voldemort would never know about unless he went back to check on the locket at some point. I do not believe that Voldemort is aware of the switch. If Sirius is right, Regulus was considered too insignificant a Death Eater to merit being killed by Voldemort himself when he deserted. If Voldemort knew he had stolen a Horcrux, I think he would have wanted to kill Regulus himself... vadwe: > I do think that maybe it wasn't Regulus who found the horcrux and > switched it, maybe it was Alphard Black, who perhaps has a first name > of Rastaban, or Rigel, or even Rana. I would buy it being someone > older, more experienced in magic and dark arts, who managed to thwart > VM plans and Alphard left the locket to Sirius within his inheritance. zgirnius: We don't know much about Alphard, other than he was a fdavorite uncle of Sirius who dies when Sirius was about 17. (Permitting him to live independently of his family...from OotP). But if he had left the locket to Sirius, I would not expect it to be at Grimmauld Place, but rather at Gringott's or Sirius' apartment (long since not his anymore, of course...) Of course, the locket might not be the locker from OotP... vadwe: > But these are my own ramblings of course. Regulus has things going for > him, like the fact that he was "in too deep" and that's why he was > done in by VM himself (I can't remember if that's how it happened) zgirnius: Sirius says it was not LV, but Sirius could be wrong about this, he would not have had firsthand knowledge of this event. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 23 18:56:20 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:56:20 -0000 Subject: Truth vs. what meets Harry's eye (Was: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks Snap In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140671 Carol: > > But what Harry sees throughout the books, even Dumbledore struck > > by a spell that knocks him from the tower and is followed by his > > death, is subject to interpretation, both Harry's and the > > reader's. > > But Harry has often been wrong before, and neither what he see nor > > what he feels is an infallible guide to truth in the sense of what > > really happened. > > Can we confidently conclude that we really know what happened on > > the tower? I don't think so.) > > > > Certainly Dumbledore is dead. Certainly Snape spoke the > > words "Avada Kedavra" and cast the spell that sent Dumbledore > > over the wall of the tower. But we know, and Harry knows, that's > > not the whole story. Alla: > Yes again. All that I am saying that with Dumbledore is dead and > Snape saying "Avada" Harry judged what happened well, even if it is > not the whole story. > > When Harry has more evidence, IF he will have more evidence, then > he will probably change his judgment. SSSusan: Giving away, yet again, that I'm three full days behind, I poke my head out to say, also in defense of Harry, that I don't blame him a bit for coming to the conclusion he came to... esp. given his history of mistrust of Snape. HOWEVER... I'm actually quite in agreement with Carol in her basic premise in the post to which Alla responded. I think we *do* have evidence in the book of several situations where what appeared to be true turned out not to be, even if it made *sense* that the person(s) believed what he/they did. Carol's examples of Hufflepuffs believing Harry to be the Heir of Slytherin and the witnesses' belief that Sirius had killed all those people are excellent ones. In the tower scene, we know what we witnessed, but did we witness enough? Do we *know* enough? Alla: > I keep thinking about SSSusan post about "straightforward reading". > Maybe she will painfully smack me across the head after reading > it :-), I don't know, maybe those are semantics, but I think that > Snape guilt IS the most straightforward reading. > > I am not saying that this is the " CORRECT" reading or "the BEST" > reading of JKR books , mind you, but I am saying that conclusion > that Snape is guilty jumps out at me without thinking about clues. > Which could be clues, but also could be red herrings, no? > > That is why I am arguing against calling Harry an idiot for > thinking that Snape is guilty. Because I don't like calling myself > an "idiot" :-) SSSusan: Hey, I went to a Quaker college. I can't do the smacking across the head thing. ;-) But, while I agree with you on not calling Harry an "idiot" for coming to the conclusion that he came to, I would argue with you about the MOST straightforward read being ESE!Snape or Turncoat! Snape. If one saw just that scene, I would agree. If one were Harry, I would agree. But with 6 books of history & evidence *coupled* with a lack of knowledge of what Snape was thinking or feeling or what condition DD was actually in or what/if anything passed between those two men, and adding in Snape's behavior on the grounds afterwards, I think it can still be a pretty straightforward read to believe in DDM! Snape. Siriusly Snapey Susan From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 23 19:22:03 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 19:22:03 -0000 Subject: Truth vs. what meets Harry's eye (Was: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks Snap In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140672 > SSSusan: I think we *do* have > evidence in the book of several situations where what appeared to be > true turned out not to be, even if it made *sense* that the person (s) > believed what he/they did. Carol's examples of Hufflepuffs believing > Harry to be the Heir of Slytherin and the witnesses' belief that > Sirius had killed all those people are excellent ones. In the tower > scene, we know what we witnessed, but did we witness enough? Do we > *know* enough? Alla: Well, actually, even though I think that Hufflepuffs believing Harry to be the Heir of Slytherin could be analogised to the situation, sort of, I don't think that witnesses' believing that Sirius killed the muggles cuts it. JMO, of course. In the Sirius' example, we do not actually witness anything . We only heard hearsay, so the level of distance from that scene for the reader is much more than in the tower scene. JMO, of course. Now, suppose, someone , be it a host, or anybody else TELLS Harry about what happened on the Tower, but Harry himself does not actually witness it. Everything else in my hypothetical is the same. Then I would say that example about witnesses' believing in Sirius' guilt would be more relevant. JMO, Alla. From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Fri Sep 23 19:53:34 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 19:53:34 -0000 Subject: RAB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140673 vadwe wrote: > Does anyone ever question if RAB isn't necesarily Regulus? Amiable Dorsai: It would be a remarkably successful red herring if it turns out to be someone else, wouldn't it? I wonder if Amelia Bones had a first name she didn't care for. And if Susan has a new locket. Amiable Dorsai From maccanena at gmail.com Fri Sep 23 20:12:51 2005 From: maccanena at gmail.com (Maria) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 16:12:51 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: RAB In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1f40e248050923131268c1b6a3@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140674 On 9/23/05, amiabledorsai wrote: > > I wonder if Amelia Bones had a first name she didn't care for. > She has a middle name, her full name is Amelia Susan Bones... I was toying with this theory for a while, not because I dissagree with the arguments for Regulus, but just to stretch the fun time of guessing a bit more. But I guess it's not her after all. maccanena From rlai1977 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 23 19:39:53 2005 From: rlai1977 at yahoo.com (rlai1977) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 19:39:53 -0000 Subject: The Powerful Slytherin (Re: Snape/Harry coincidence?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140675 Jumping in here ;-) --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > Harry truly hates Draco and sees few redeeming > qualities because they are so different While I do not think Draco would be Harry's main 'shadow' in the series, I don't think they are stark contrasts in terms of personality, really. In OOTP, when Harry was feeling a bit of resentment towards Ron for getting the prefect badge, he thought to himself "if he was arrogant like Malfoy". A sense of superiority is something Harry can't help feeling at times, and it's also something he doesn't like about himself, so he fights to repress it. In POA, when the Trio found out about Sirius's alleged betrayal of Harry's parents, Ron and Hermione were all "oh nono you mustn't go after him!" Harry thought that his two friends simply *did not understand* his desire to revenge, and vengeance is again something both Harry and Draco have felt, at a different time. The fact both boys are competitive and find it natural to give orders to their peers, are another similarity between them- though these aren't negative in themselves. > Jen: This is curious to me. I see elements of what you say here in > Harry, maybe not to the same extent you do, but it makes me wonder > again why their paths diverged so radically. I think the crucial difference between Snape and Harry's circumstances would be the existence/lack of a support system. Pre- PS/SS Harry was bullied, alone, unloved (as far as he knew), bitter, and felt he was different from everyone else. IF, instead of Hagrid, it was a much darker character who first approached him, offered him protection and power, and tempted him to go down the dark path- would Harry have chosen to? In Rowling-speak, the support system might translate into 'love', and likely why she said in a way Snape was 'more culpable even than Voldemort' because at least Snape has been loved, while Voldemort never has. Though of course love will be rather simplistic an explanation to why three people with similar backgrounds would choose to make very different choices (Harry, much loved: good; Snape, loved by one(or more?):between good and bad; Voldemort,never been loved: BAD) :-D. And I believe Snape has long turned away from the original path he'd taken, it's just his road to redemption is hard, long and loney :-( RP From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Sep 23 21:23:52 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 21:23:52 -0000 Subject: Truth vs. what meets Harry's eye (Was: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks Snap In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140676 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > SSSusan: > > I think we *do* have > > evidence in the book of several situations where what appeared to > be > > true turned out not to be, even if it made *sense* that the person > (s) > > believed what he/they did. Carol's examples of Hufflepuffs > believing > > Harry to be the Heir of Slytherin and the witnesses' belief that > > Sirius had killed all those people are excellent ones. In the > tower > > scene, we know what we witnessed, but did we witness enough? Do we > > *know* enough? > > Alla: > > Well, actually, even though I think that Hufflepuffs believing Harry > to be the Heir of Slytherin could be analogised to the situation, > sort of, I don't think that witnesses' believing that Sirius killed > the muggles cuts it. JMO, of course. > > In the Sirius' example, we do not actually witness anything . We only > heard hearsay, so the level of distance from that scene for the > reader is much more than in the tower scene. JMO, of course. > > Now, suppose, someone , be it a host, or anybody else TELLS Harry > about what happened on the Tower, but Harry himself does not actually > witness it. Everything else in my hypothetical is the same. Then I > would say that example about witnesses' believing in Sirius' guilt > would be more relevant. Geoff: I would like to return to the basic question whether Harry is an idiot in believing in Snape's guilt. If he is, then I shall join him in being one myself. When I first read HBP, I took this chapter at face value - that Snape had killed Dumbledore, full stop. I have read the chapter a couple more times but until I see JKR's own interpretation in Book 7 (hopefully!) I am not attempting to take on board any of the umpteen theories which have been served into court. It is a well-known fact that if several people witness an event (such as an accident) and then give statements to the police, these reports will vary from person to person, sometimes to the extent of contradicting one another. So it is with some of our theories; they can't all be right. I am not analytical enough to attempt my own conspiracy theory so I shall sit at the side of the playing field and enjoy the fun of watching the game progress. Is Harry an idiot? In my opinion, no. At this point, he is mentally and physically tired and drained, having gone through the stress of the cave events and his concern for Dumbledore's health and safety. Whatever Dumbledore (and others) may say about Snape, Harry has still not seen any evidence of his own; to him Snape is cruel and sadistic and not to be trusted further than Harry can throw him. The conversation between Dumbledore and Draco really fails to give any guidance to Harry: '"Why didn't you stop me then?" Malfoy demanded. "I tried, Draco. Professor Snape has been keeping watch over you on my orders -" "He hasn't been doing your orders, he promised my mother -" "Of course that is what he would tell you, Draco, but -" "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 -" "Well, you're losing your grip then!" sneered Malfoy.' (HBP "The Lightning-Struck Tower" p.549 UK edition) In a sense, this is what Harry wants to hear - Snape is not to be trusted, whatever Dumbledore might say - and it also underlines his belief that Draco is working actively against them. Dumbledore had admitted to Harry - particularly in OOTP - that he had made mistakes and misjudgments. Why shouldn't this be the same? And then, at the end of the scene, Snape enters: '"We've got a problem, Snape," said the lumpy Amycus, whose eyes and wand were fixed alike upon Dumbledore, "the boy doesn't seem able -"' (ibid. p.556) To Harry's eyes at this point, Snape appears to be a double-agent; to compound it, he walks forward and speaks the Avada Kedavra spell which appears to take effect. What is Harry going to do at this point when his Body-Bind is released? Turn cartwheels and say "Whoopee, this is all just to make the Death Eaters believe that Snape is on their side. Dumbledore wanted to be killed to preserve his cover. that wasn't really an AK." Is he heck. He has just "witnessed" Draco implying that Dumbledore's trust is ill-founded and Snape casting a killing spell. Harry's experience of seeing AKs is not sufficiently broad to know whether the effects, though different, suggest that this was not the spell cast. He is doing what we all would do in the circumstances. He is analysing what he saw and interpreting it at face value. Why should he do otherwise? He does not have the backup of the HPFGU Department of Conspiracy Theories to call on and, at the moment, all he can see confirms his worst fears about Snape. He (and I) will have to receive some thorough explanations from someone who can convince us that what we witnessed was not the truth before we can move on to believing in Snape. From sherriola at earthlink.net Fri Sep 23 21:34:19 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:34:19 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Truth vs. what meets Harry's eye (Was: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks Snap In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <005101c5c086$8f610ce0$7421f204@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 140677 SSSusan: But, while I agree with you on not calling Harry an "idiot" for coming to the conclusion that he came to, I would argue with you about the MOST straightforward read being ESE!Snape or Turncoat! Snape. If one saw just that scene, I would agree. If one were Harry, I would agree. But with 6 books of history & evidence *coupled* with a lack of knowledge of what Snape was thinking or feeling or what condition DD was actually in or what/if anything passed between those two men, and adding in Snape's behavior on the grounds afterwards, I think it can still be a pretty straightforward read to believe in DDM! Snape. Siriusly Snapey Susan Sherry now: Oh sadly I have to find myself in disagreement with SS Susan! You said that if it was just that one scene it could be a straight forward reading of ESE Snape, but with all we know from the other books ... well, to me, the tower scene just confirmed everything I knew about Snape from previous books. It gave me the freedom to stop trying to force myself into believing that such a total jerk and monster could still be on the side of good and now I can believe my instinct that has always tried to tell me he is bad. It wasn't that the tower scene changed my mind. It shocked me, oh my how it shocked me. I had worked for years to try to believe Snape because of Dumbledore's trust in him. But the tower just brought everything about Snape together in my mind everything from all the books and my conclusion is that he murdered Dumbledore for whatever reason. i don't even care if it was or was not an AK. killing Dumbledore makes him evil to me, just as everything i've ever read of him made me suspect in the past, though I tried to deny it. So, again, how we all read these books is so open to interpretation, that we can all and have all read the exact same set of books, and we have all come to very different conclusions. I suppose this is another brilliant thing JKR has done, especially in the creation of Snape. sherry From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Fri Sep 23 21:46:23 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 21:46:23 -0000 Subject: Snape's future (Was: Snape's other books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140678 SSSusan wrote: I found myself thinking, "Well, > that might have happened *if* Draco knew and trusted those other > three DEs and elected to go with them, but that's the *only* way it > would have happened." > Saraquel Yes, that is the scenario that was in my mind. That the 3 DEs wouldn't wait around for Snape ? but would return to a pre-arranged meeting point, which if they had any sense at all they would have set up before the attack on Hogwarts. Bearing in mind that Draco has presumably been working with these people to set up the attack, I would say he knows them well enough to go with them. SSSusan wrote ... I'm a "He's a sadistic git but he's still on > the side of good" kind of gal... but I find that NO MATTER WHICH side > I imagine Snape to ultimately be on, I still can't imagine him > abandoning Draco at that moment. Saraquel: No, I agree, I'm pretty sure that Snape would not abandon Draco, but the question is, would Draco refuse to go without Snape? Would they wait for him and risk being attacked by Buckbeak? I would think that Draco was in pretty bad shape after the scene on the tower and would not feel he was in any position to say anything. The 3 DEs were obviously afraid (?) or at least bowed to Snape's authority. Snape had given them the order to get the hell out, my feeling is that they would do that as soon as they reached the gate and drag Draco with them. However, the real question is, in my mind, does JKR want Snape to continue in Voldemort's camp? There is this little insistent voice inside which keeps telling me Snape is about to do a runner from everyone, he's had enough. I think that the row in the forest could easily be interpreted as saying that. It could be that he wants to dis-apparate to the other side of the world but will stick around to protect Draco. In which case, as Snape knew nothing of the attack, he would no know the prearranged meeting point. To stay with Draco, they would have had to wait for him. >Potioncat wrote: >DD was offering sanctuary to Draco and his family. Did Snape know >that? Could it still be done? If Book 7 starts off with the news >that >Draco and Narcissa have been killed, don't believe it. Saraquel I liked this observation, Potioncat. If the DEs and Draco did wait for Snape he could easily separate with Draco and go into impenetrable hiding. As I said above, I just feel Snape wants out, and without DD, his structure of command has just collapsed. I could still see him working against Voldemort in some way, but just not as a spy. I'm probably wrong, but heh, I can keep my little dream world for another two years yet! Saraquel From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 23 22:10:35 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 22:10:35 -0000 Subject: Snape's future (Was: Snape's other books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140679 SSSusan wrote : > Partly it's that I think he has watched Draco all 6 years he's been at Hogwarts. But I think, truthfully, it's also partly that, for all his horribleness, I think Snape typically DOES try to protect his students. Somehow I just can't picture him leaving Draco until he was sure he was at least safe for the moment. > Potioncat responded: > Snape has been watching out for Draco for 6 years. No doubt about > that. He's also been watching out for all his students, (IMHO) all along. > > To review: Snape sent Draco ahead of him; Snape was chased off > grounds by Witherwings; Harry believed Snape had Apparated because Witherwings was hovering around the area. > > We don't know whether anyone had waited for Snape, nor where they > would go. If they did report to LV I think Snape would spin a new web to the best advantage. Keep in mind DDM!Snape is now protecting Draco and the Order. That can't be easy! Also, Draco is no longer a child; he's a young man. > > DD was offering sanctuary to Draco and his family. Did Snape know that? Could it still be done? If Book 7 starts off with the news that Draco and Narcissa have been killed, don't believe it. Carol adds: First, I found it hard to snip Potioncat's post because although I agree with it, I want to respond directly to her points (except the one about protecting all his students, which would take me off track). Snape has, of course, been protecting Draco all year, and I think he would have done so with or without the Unbearable, I mean Unbreakable, Vow. His concern for Draco is revealed in "Spinner's End," in the interview that Harry overhears, in the Sectumsempra scene (in which he gets Draco out of the way by appealing to his vanity, sending him to Madam Pomfrey for dittany to prevent scarring), and in the tower scene and its aftermath. He saves Draco's life twice, first the Sectumsempra countercurse, chanted lovingly three times, and again on the tower in fulfilling the third provision of his vow. He grabs Draco by the scruff of the neck and runs with him from the school grounds, saving him from the DEs and McGonagall, and anyone else who might hurt him. As he turns to deal with Harry, he shouts, "Run, Draco!" Clearly, whether the vow still holds or not, he's concerned with Draco's safety. It's not a matter of form, or (IMO) concern for himself and his vow. He *cares* about Draco. Or that's how it looks to me. Now granted, we don't know whether Draco waited for Snape and they apparated together or whether they apparated separately. My guess is that all of them knew where Voldemort was and that Snape assumed that Draco would go there and followed. I also think that Snape, still concerned with Draco's safety, would praise Draco's accomplishment to Voldemort ("My Lord, he allowed the Death Eaters into Hogwarts. If it weren't for him, Dumbledore would not be dead.") Words of that sort would lessen any punishment Voldemort felt Draco deserved and at the same time show Draco that Snape was not trying to steal his "glory" (while still concealing what I believe to be Snape's true loyalties). Once they've faced Voldemort and received whatever reward or punishment he feels they deserve (and it's impossible to know how LV will regard the whole affair), I think Snape will offer Draco the chance to remain with him. If Draco realizes the danger he's in (a wanted man in the WW with no choice but to hide out somewhere), as well as how much Snape has done for him all year, he may decide to remain with Snape as opposed to Aunt Bellatrix (who I think is hiding in the hidden chamber under the Malfoys' drawing room). But if he decides that he's a "man" (legally of age and out of school since a return to Hogwarts is inconceivable), he may reject Snape's protection. ("You're not my teacher any more!") Considering that he avoided Snape all year and was a rude little brat to him when they did talk, rejection seems to me the likelier reaction. At any rate, I can't see Snape voluntarily relinquishing his duty to protect Draco, but if Draco rejects his protection, I can see him wanting to be free of any remaining provisions of the vow. He would still, I'm sure, risk his life to protect Draco (and, IMO, Harry), but at least he wouldn't have the shadow of death hanging over him at every moment. He'll have enough on his plate with the Aurors and the Order and Harry and Voldemort--especially if, as we suspect, he and Harry are on the same side. Carol From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Fri Sep 23 23:41:31 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 23:41:31 -0000 Subject: The Powerful Slytherin (Re: Snape/Harry coincidence?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140680 So many good points in this thread! I want to see if I can tie together, what Harry needs to learn about Love and the parallels between Harry and Snape. Jen wrote: >Lily must be the >remaining person who has something very important to teach Harry. >I'm tending toward her over Snape now, because of what you said >here. The outcome will relate to Snape, but perhaps the learning >part won't. Saraquel: I've been thinking for some while now that *both* Snape and Lily are essential for Harry to learn how to defeat Voldemort. In my last post, I speculated at the end on the next encounter between Harry and Snape. (We know there is going to be one because in the MN/LC interview, JKR said something about ? everything being set up now for when they next meet.) IMO, Lily is going to show Harry the *power* of love and his encounter with Snape is going to prepare him to use it. I think, that in order to use this almighty weapon without being destroyed by it himself, he is going to have to sort some stuff out in himself. And this is where the parallels which you (plural) have been pointing out, have shed light for me. > Betsy Hp: > Perhaps, once Harry sees Snape as a whole, sees the good side to the man, he'll recognize the good side to himself? I'm probably not > making any kind of sense, but if Snape represents everything Harry > fears about himself, maybe confronting those fears will provide > Harry with a new understanding of himself. Jen wrote: >Harry will >either see the good in Snape, or the dark in himself, or both at >essentially the same time. Saraquel: These two comments have really helped me encapsulate my ideas about Snape and Harry's next meeting. I've been thinking that Harry has to conquer his vengeance and also speculating (courtesy of Valky) that Snape is genuinely seeking knowledge of the power which Harry has. These comments have sort of brought those two threads together for me. At the end of my last post, I tentatively used the word `forgiveness', and that Harry needs to understand it. I didn't mean it in the soft - yes don't worry, I feel warm and fuzzy about you now ? way. If you know anything about needing to forgive someone for something abusive which they have done to you, you will know that there is nothing warm and fuzzy about it, neither can you ever do the forgetting part literally. What I'm trying to get at here, is that forgiving and forgetting is more about the individual saying to themselves: whatever happened to me, like it or not, it's part of me. That experience is mine and it made me what I am now. The only way to move forward independently, and make the choices about life that the person wants to make, is to let go of the past and own the internal damage ? to cut free of blaming the other person. As long as there is blame, then the individual's actions are tied to the perpetrator of the wrong. The desire for vengeance is the damage that the perpetrator has inflicted, speaking. Following that, IMO, will never cure that damage, or bring the individual to acceptance of it. I am suggesting that the meaning of forgiveness, is to accept total responsibility for what you are and to embrace it, thus setting yourself free and allowing you to regain your free will. In doing so, you set the other person free as well, hence you forgive them and by ceasing to allow your own actions to be governed by the past, you forget. Whether that other person accepts that the link is broken, i.e. accepts the forgiveness, is up to them. So we have a situation where the relationship between Harry and Snape is totally dependent on past wrongs. That Harry has to recognise the damage, which is motivated by the past, is doing to him is essential IMO, or the power of love which is his weapon, will destroy him as well when he meets Voldemort. I see it rather like a blockage in a rifle barrel. Firing the bullet will cause the whole rifle to explode. If there is any sort of desire for vengeance, the mirror effect of the power of love, which we discussed before will come into play (and if you don't agree with that, you're not going to agree with this :-) but, what the hell, Saraquel ploughs on! If you haven't read the last judgement love thread and are now interested to do so, it starts at 136797, although I think there might have been some stuff before that.) This is what destroyed Voldemort at GH, the AK bounced off the `mirror' and destroyed him, because he wouldn't accept what is showed him. I would like to think that both Snape and Harry will learn the power of forgiveness (as I have outlined the meaning of it) in their next encounter. But it somewhat depends on whether JKR is going to redeem Snape or destroy him. As some of you may well know ? I'm for redeemed Snape and I think there is plenty of evidence that Snape has what it takes to be open to redemption and ready for it. So the ingredients in the mix for the next encounter between Harry and Snape, IMO, are: 1) the power of love which Harry has finally learned from seeing the events at GH, 2) the fact that Snape and Harry are in some ways two sides of the same coin, the need for both of them to fully recognise and accept all of themselves (good and bad) if they are to move forward. See Jen and Betsy's comments. 3) Harry's inability to defeat Snape with a well placed unforgiveable, and Snape's reluctance to use one on Harry. 4) the possibility that Harry might well try and access his new found power and that is what will cause the big bang for both of them. Saraquel From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 24 00:11:31 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 00:11:31 -0000 Subject: Draco and Narcissa in hiding (Was: Snape's future) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140681 Potioncat wrote: > DD was offering sanctuary to Draco and his family. Did Snape know that? Could it still be done? If Book 7 starts off with the news that Draco and Narcissa have been killed, don't believe it. Carol notes: I meant to respond to this portion of your post earlier, but maybe it needs its own thread. Anyway, I don't know whether Snape knows about DD's offer of sanctuary, but Draco could have told him about it. The question becomes how their deaths could plausibly be arranged now that Snape is no longer in communication with the Order (AFAWK). Suppose Snape informs the Order (maybe Lupin?) that he's "killed" them by administering the Draught of Living Death, suggesting that MadEye Moody find them and inform the Daily Prophet that they've been AK'd by DEs? After an open-casket funeral service (not a burial!), they could be taken into hiding by the Order members. Since Avada Kedavra (in the clearcut examples that have been described in canon) doesn't leave a mark and neither, presumably, would the Draught of Living Death, it would be very easy to persuade any mourners (Theo Nott and Crabbe/Goyle?) that the Malfoys were indeed dead, especially if the breathing of someone who's taken the Draught is undetectable. I know it's difficult to work out the logistics of such a plan, but I think JKR has planted hints that something of the sort is going to happen. Snape talks about the Draught of Living Death (along with bezoars) in his very first Potions lesson, and it's mentioned again in HBP (more than once, IIRC) as if to refresh our memories. Surely it's important and will play a role in Book 7. Somebody's death, I'm willing to bet, is going to be faked using the Draught of Living Death. (Harry's, Hermione's or a Weasley's is another possiblity.) And I realize that Dumbledore's "He cannot kill you if you are already dead" speech was edited out of the British edition of HBP, but it still stands in the American edition (and as an editor myself I will argue adamantly against its being editorial tampering--it must be JKR's own words. No editor would presume to make such an addition). It, too, is there (or was there) for a reason. At any rate, Dumbledore refers to "members of the Order" (he doesn't specify *which* Order; he assumes that Draco knows its name) as being able to hide both Draco and his mother "more completely than you can possibly imagine" (HBP Am. ed. 592). Draco probably knows from Aunt Bellatrix exactly who was present in the DoM battle, and he knows at least some of the Order members personally and could possibly contact them--his "blood traitor" cousin Tonks, for example, or his ex-teacher Lupin (if he knows where to find him and can get past his fear of werewolves). But even if he did so, none of them is a Potions expert who knows how to brew a foolproof Draught of Living Death (and it would be very risky for an amateur to attempt to brew such a potentially lethal potion) even with the help of the HBP's Potions book--unless they found a vial of it when they raided his office at Hogwarts. And even then I think they'd need Snape to administer it, which is why I suggested the scenario in my second paragraph.If he brews and administers the potion with their consent and informs the Order after the fact, what choice do they have but to follow through with the plan or violate Dumbledore's wishes by denying the Malfoys mercy? (The only obstacle I can see is Bellatrix, and Narcissa can stupefy her or drug her in advance and let *her* discover the bodies--and of course disapparate for fear of being blamed.) At any rate, I agree with Potioncat that Draco's and Narcissa's deaths may well be faked in Book 7 and I think both DD's little speech and the Draught of Living Death are hints as to how it might be brought about. It seems to me as if both Snape and the Order would have to be involved in some way to pull it off, and that Harry would recognize this act of mercy (unmerited by definition) as Dumbledore's will. Carol, noting that the idea is not a theory but wondering if anyone thinks it has merit From muellem at bc.edu Sat Sep 24 00:30:41 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 00:30:41 -0000 Subject: Draco and Narcissa in hiding (Was: Snape's future) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140682 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > At any rate, I agree with Potioncat that Draco's and Narcissa's deaths > may well be faked in Book 7 and I think both DD's little speech and > the Draught of Living Death are hints as to how it might be brought > about. It seems to me as if both Snape and the Order would have to be > involved in some way to pull it off, and that Harry would recognize > this act of mercy (unmerited by definition) as Dumbledore's will. > > Carol, noting that the idea is not a theory but wondering if anyone > thinks it has merit I think it has merit as well, except I don't think it is the Draught of Living Death(more on that later). I think DD was going to do some spell or potion(hence Snape's involvment) to make the Malfoy family *die*, when in fact they were alive and unhappy, protected by the Filelius Charm. I think that this is what happened to Regulus Black(I am in the camp that he is not dead, but the original "You cannot be killed if you are already dead" wizard). This goes back to my Snape theory on why DD trusts him and that Snape delivered Regulus to DD, instead of killing him on LV's orders. I think that Regulus will play a huge part in book 7 - since Rowling isn't going to introduce any new characters, he would be a good bet, IMHO. OK - the Draught of Living Death - I think that potion is not used to *hide* the living and make them seem dead. Instead of I think that potion is used keep someone, who is moments away from death, from actually crossing over to the other side. I think that is what DD had been taking during book 6 and why Snape didn't really kill DD - he just released him from the effects of the potion. DD doesn't fear death, as he has stated time & time again, but he needed to teach Harry about Horcruxes before he could go. but that is just my theory. Are we hoping it is just 1 year & 9 months, or do we think Rowling will keeps us hanging for a longer period of time? colebiancardi From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Sep 24 00:54:29 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 00:54:29 -0000 Subject: Draco and Narcissa in hiding (Was: Snape's future) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140683 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Potioncat wrote: > > > > DD was offering sanctuary to Draco and his family. Did Snape know > that? Could it still be done? If Book 7 starts off with the news that > Draco and Narcissa have been killed, don't believe it. *(big snip again)* > Carol, noting that the idea is not a theory but wondering if anyone > thinks it has merit Ceridwen: I think it has merit. I'm of the opinion that LV won't want Snape around any more - as has been mentioned, he's done what LV couldn't do, which makes him both dangerous to LV personally, and a distraction to any unsatisfied DEs. He's also lost his primary value to LV's mission, that of being a spy at Hogwarts and in the Order, IOW, against DD. I think he's sharp enough to know that, and won't go back. He does seem to be protecting Draco as well as Harry, and seems to have more of a positive history with the Malfoy clan than he did with the Potters. He has connections with the Order, or at least he did. Draco seemed to be considering Dumbledore's offer, so he may discuss it with Snape, or with his mother either in Snape's hearing, or Narcissa will bring it up to him. I think Snape would advise Draco not to return to LV. Draco may be as redundant as Snape, though he did prove himself to be of some use in getting the DEs into Hogwarts. Spinner's End suggests that LV had no further interest in Draco than to punish his father by orchistrating his death. He didn't die like he was supposed to. LV doesn't like disobedience. And, he probably wouldn't care for the UV being made, either, if he had no hand in it. If Narcissa (and Bellatrix!) went behind his back, they're not exactly in favor any more, either. And, just by going behind his back that way, I wonder if they're not as stuck on LV as they had been before the DoM battle. The only way for them to get away from LV, and have no one searching for them to do them under, they would have to be dead, as Dumbledore stated. *IF* it has been done before (RAB, Irma Pince?), it was successful. And, Snape probably knows about it. It would have to be a public, open-casket funeral. And, some DEs must see the bodies to make it true for LV and the rest of the DEs. Having Bellatrix find them, as Carol suggested, would be great. If she's staying under the floor at their house, she'd be in the perfect position to do it. And, this would give LV and the DEs a Renegade!Snape. Because, who else would Bellatrix believe to have done it? There would be no struggle, at least for the first death. He would be welcomed into their home as the person who spared Draco the necessity of doing what he couldn't do, and he's an old family friend. Now, apparently, he's gone on a killing spree, apart from LV's orders. Gone crazy? Did he actually direct the DEs correctly about leaving Harry alive? Or is that another bit of evidence LV will ponder, showing Snape's lost his mind? He could still be believed by most or all to be ESE!Snape, just carrying out orders from LV which were never given to him. Loony as a moonbat. The problem would be getting past any member of the Order's mistrust and suspicion, IMO. Maybe clues will be put together, or there will be something from Dumbledore. But, maybe not. Which would lead to Snape, alone, and not the Order, managing the entire affair. Which would be harder, since he doesn't have the resources of many people at his command, and his own home is probably watched either by DEs or Aurors or both. I do think Snape could easily live in the Muggle world, if TS stuck around after the big explosion. It wouldn't be alien to him. Could Draco and Narcissa? But, I've thought since the end of the book, that Snape wouldn't take Draco back to LV. A public 'death' for him and his mother, then for Lucius if/when he's released/escapes from Azkaban, would be a handy way to avoid the complications of life on the run. Which leads to another problem: What about Snape? Would he 'die' too? Or, would he be out there, a raving, murdering lunatic, sought by both DEs and Aurors? That would certainly complicate things for his plans, and for the Malfoys. So, I have two basic problems with the idea: Getting around the Order's mistrust of Snape (Harry's vouching for what DD said on the Tower might help if Draco or Narcissa approached them, but not Snape); and, would Snape 'die' as well (who would 'kill' him?)? Otherwise, I think it's quite possible this will happen. If only to carry out DD's last idea from the Order's perspective. Ceridwen. From Nanagose at aol.com Sat Sep 24 01:17:03 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 01:17:03 -0000 Subject: Draco and Narcissa in hiding (Was: Snape's future) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140684 > colebiancardi > I think that this is what happened to Regulus Black(I > am in the camp that he is not dead, but the original "You cannot be > killed if you are already dead" wizard). This goes back to my Snape > theory on why DD trusts him and that Snape delivered Regulus to DD, > instead of killing him on LV's orders. I think that Regulus will > play a huge part in book 7 - since Rowling isn't going to introduce > any new characters, he would be a good bet, IMHO. Christina: I love the idea, but I truly believe that if Dumbledore *had* hidden Regulus, he would have told Sirius about it. I think he would want the brothers reunited, especially considering Sirius's past dealings with his family. And, if Dumbledore *had* said something of the sort to Sirius, I think we would have heard about it too. I'm totally behind the idea that there is an original "You cannot be killed if you are already dead" wizard. It's fun to speculate who that may be. (On a side note, I'm really curious to know what happened to Andromeda- Sirius says "Andromeda *was* my favorite cousin," which suggests to me that she's dead). I agree that Regulus will be a huge deal in Book 7 (which is why I think he's RAB, but that's a different thread)- why else would Rowling bring him up? > > colebiancardi > OK - the Draught of Living Death - I think that potion is not used to > *hide* the living and make them seem dead. Instead of I think that > potion is used keep someone, who is moments away from death, from > actually crossing over to the other side. Christina: That's a really interesting idea, and I'd agree with you if it weren't for Unicorn blood serving that purpose already. Christina From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Sat Sep 24 01:58:09 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 01:58:09 -0000 Subject: Who is hidden? Was Re: Draco and Narcissa in hiding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140685 >colebiancardi >I think that this is what happened to Regulus Black(I >am in the camp that he is not dead, but the original "You cannot be >killed if you are already dead" wizard). Saraquel: I don't think that this is Regulus - more in a minute on that. I think that the wizard in hiding is Caradoc Dearborn - yes my little pet obsession :-) He is the one whom Moody described from the photo (OotP party) as disappearing without a trace. One possibility for him is that he may have been the extra person at GH who told DD what happened. IMO, whoever was at GH told DD what happened, otherwise how would he know that Lily sacrificed herself and her love protected Harry. The problem being of course, if it was somebody on the side of good, why didn't they help Lily out and snuff it in the process, if it was somebody on Voldemort's side, what the hell were they doing telling DD. The only person who could fulfil that argument is Snape. But I don't think Snape was at GH. (I know I have a cast iron reason for thinking that, but it seems to have just disappered down the black hole of my memory at the moment :-)) Anyway, further supporting evidence (though of course nowhere near conclusive) is that Caradoc is a Welsh name (correct me if I'm wrong), so he could well have been in the area. Also, there is a very interesting myth about Caradoc being bitten by a snake and spending 12 years in hiding - here's the link - actually I can't find the original source I used, but here is a similar one http://tentacle.net/~dawnhawk/witchcraft/cmyth4.html Colebiancardi wrote: This goes back to my Snape >theory on why DD trusts him and that Snape delivered Regulus to DD, >instead of killing him on LV's orders. I think that Regulus will >play a huge part in book 7 - Saraquel: My big problem with this, other than Christina's point about DD not telling Sirius, is the whole Cave scenario - was it then, just a training exercise for Harry and the potion was concocted by Snape perhaps and was harmless? Not that I think that is not a possibility. One of my first posts after HPB came out was about feeling that there was something very fishy about the whole cave event and I suggested it had the feel of a training scenario. But further reflection has pretty well led me to abandon this one. colebiancardi wrote: I posted a theory that Snape gave DD Pettigrew since Rowling isn't going to introduce > > any new characters, he would be a good bet, IMHO. Saraquel: I posted a theory that Snape gave spy!Pettigrew to DD and that was why he trusted him, but my biggest problem there was what would DD make of Sirius apparently killing Pettigrew. (I did deal with other objections btw.) Anyway - JKR has said in the MN/LC interview, that we will meet some old Order members in book 7, which is why I think Caradoc might come into play. Saraquel From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Sep 23 23:32:17 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 23:32:17 -0000 Subject: Truth vs. what meets Harry's eye (Was: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks Snap In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140686 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > If one saw just that scene, I would agree. If one were Harry, I > would agree. But with 6 books of history & evidence *coupled* with a > lack of knowledge of what Snape was thinking or feeling or what > condition DD was actually in or what/if anything passed between those > two men, and adding in Snape's behavior on the grounds afterwards, I > think it can still be a pretty straightforward read to believe in DDM! > Snape. > > Well, it's POSSIBLE to read that, Susan. But straightforward? IMO, it assumes far too many facts not in evidence to be straightforward. Of course, any theory assumes a lot of facts not in evidence at this point. Personally, I think that any of the scenarios commonly trotted out for DDM!Snape (a legilemency conversation on the tower, a plot between DD and Snape beforehand, DD not really dead, the AK a fake), would be unbelievable, incredibly contrived, and extraordinarily poor writing. Having said that, I can't come up with many scenarios on the other sides that aren't also contrived and unbelievable, although none so much so as DDM!Snape. JKR has written herself into a corner with this one, and I really don't believe she understood quite what a corner she was in until HBP hit the shelves (at least judging by some of her reactions in the three part interview). She has gotten herself into corners before (OOTP for example) and in order to extricate herself had to do a LOT of handwaving and sweeping of things under rugs, along with a couple of subtle canon rewrites (i.e. she essentially swept away DD's speech at the end of OOTP and gave him another one early in HBP). I'm afraid, regardless of what happens with Snape, that more of the same is on the horizon. Lupinlore From juli17 at aol.com Sat Sep 24 02:41:27 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 22:41:27 EDT Subject: Snape's patronus in Book 7 (Re: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks .....) Message-ID: <1c3.31b93996.306616d7@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140687 Jen wrote: > > Another possibility, we just found out a patronus can change. How > convenient! Order members would be quite surprised if Snape's > patronus has changed form and reflects his loyalty to Dumbledore. > Yes, but how would they know it's Snape's patronus if it's changed? Is there a way of identifying patronuses even when they are changed? Had Snape seen Tonks's wolf-patronus before and just not commented on it, or did he have some way of knowing who had sent it even if it had changed? Once again, that assumes all sorts of facts about patronuses that aren't in evidence. Julie: Really, we don't need to assume those facts. In fact, it might make more sense not to assume them. The most pertinent question right now is "Why did JKR tell us that a wizard can change a patronus?" This factoid certainly had no real relevance in HBP, other than being part of the evidence that Tonks was pining for Lupin (and not at all necessary, since the other evidence sufficed, if one bought Tonks wilting away over this unrequited love). And when JKR tosses these irrelevant factoids into the mix, she often does so because they will have relevance to the plot in later books. And what would have more relevance in Book 7 than finding out that Snape changed his patronus? Especially if the Order is unaware of the change. Imagine a previously unseen patronus delivering messages to the Order, a patronus that appears to be connected to Dumbledore and the Order--a phoenix, for instance. Would the Order take the information imparted by the patronus seriously? I think they would, especially *if* they couldn't identify the caster of the patronus. They might assume the caster was someone working on Dumbledore's behalf, especially if the information proved helpful. But they would never think that person could be Snape, the man they believe killed Dumbledore! Lupinlore: Also, when asked about Snape's patronus before HBP JKR said she wouldn't reveal it because it would give too much away. That implies something about Snape's patronus BEFORE the events on the tower -- unless you are wanting to postulate that JKR is being slipshod with language and forgetting that although it might be "after HBP time" for her it is still "before HBP time" for her listeners. That's possible, but doesn't strike me as likely in this case. It is much more plausible that JKR meant exactly what she said, that Snape's patronus AS OF THE TIME OF THE QUESTION, i.e. pre- HBP, would give too much away. But whatever that "too much" is, it can't be anything that would point strongly to Snape's innocence, as Lupin, McGonnagall, et. al. are familiar with the patronus from Order business and don't bring it up as strong evidence against Snape's guilt. Julie says: I do think it's plausible JKR would be referring to HBP when she says she can't reveal Snape's patronus. After all, we haven't seen Snape's patronus, so why would she necessarily be referring to a patronus we never see in the books? Since we will see only see Snape's patronus in Book 7 (as it's the only one left), it seems logical that she refer to the one that will actually *be* in the books. Works for me, anyway. Julie (who postulates that Snape's patronus may see more action in Book 7 than Snape will, and that his patronus may be the crucial evidence that proves his true allegiance) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Sep 24 03:35:53 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 03:35:53 -0000 Subject: Draco and Narcissa in hiding (Was: Snape's future) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140688 colebiancardi: > OK - the Draught of Living Death - I think that potion is not used > to *hide* the living and make them seem dead. Instead of I think that > potion is used keep someone, who is moments away from death, from > actually crossing over to the other side. zgirnius: I believe that in PS/SS Snape explains that the drinker is put into a deep sleep by the Draught of Living Death, so I think it would be more useful in faking a death. This is not to say that there couldn't be some other potion Snape was using to keep Dumbledore alive if he was in fact dying from the effects of the curse on the ring hircrux. > Christina: > > That's a really interesting idea, and I'd agree with you if it weren't > for Unicorn blood serving that purpose already. zgirnius: Quirrel!Mort was certainly using it for this purpose in PS/SS, but from all the comments about living at the expense of a beautiful and innocent magical creature in that book (living a "cursed half-life" and such) I doubt Dumbledore would go for it. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 24 03:56:21 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 03:56:21 -0000 Subject: Draught of Living Death (Was: Draco and Narcissa in hiding) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140689 colebiancardi wrote: > OK - the Draught of Living Death - I think that potion is not used to *hide* the living and make them seem dead. Instead of I think that potion is used keep someone, who is moments away from death, from actually crossing over to the other side. I think that is what DD had been taking during book 6 and why Snape didn't really kill DD - he just released him from the effects of the potion. DD doesn't fear death, as he has stated time & time again, but he needed to teach Harry about Horcruxes before he could go. > Carol responds: You snipped most of my post, so I'll put in a link in case anyone wants to go upthread to the original post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140681 I guess I didn't make myself quite clear here. I didn't mean that the Draught of Living Death was in itself a way to hide the living though I do think it makes them seem to be dead. I meant that after the funeral service, someone in the know would rescue the "bodies" so that the caskets buried in the Malfoys' graves would be empty (like Mrs. Crouch's) and someone in the Order would administer the antidote before sending them into hiding. They'd be like Peter Pettigrew, safe from retaliation because they were believed by the whole WW to be dead. The Draught of Living Death is apparently very much like the poison given to Snow White by the wicked queen or maybe more like the one given by the monk to Juliet in "Romeo and Juliet." Snape describes its effects in SS/PS: "For your information, Potter, asphodel and wormwood make a sleeping potion so powerful it is known as the Draught of Living Death" (SS Am. ed. 138). I read this to mean that the person is so deeply asleep that he appears to be dead. It's unclear how long the effects last and whether it requires an antidote, but it sounds like the perfect way to fake a death, particularly an AK. (But someone would have to know that they weren't dead and rescue them, or they'd be buried alive.) As for Snape ending the effects of the potion protecting the (fake) locket Horcrux (poisoned memories or whatever it was), much as I'd like to believe that Snape rescued Dumbledore from it (with a spell disguised as an Avada Kedavra), I don't see the evidence for it. That potion was horrible, and it appeared to me to be killing Dumbledore, making him weaker by the second as he slid down the wall. I don't see any evidence that it was *preventing* him from dying, or that Snape (who assuredly sent Dumbledore over the tower wall, whatever else he did), released him from the potion's effects. (Can a spell counter a potion? We've seen curses and countercurses, poisons and antidotes, but never a spell that can counter a potion or vice versa.) I do wonder if there's a potion that can bring a person back from near-death, rather like phoenix tears but not so difficult to obtain. (Maybe that's one of the twelve uses of dragon's blood.) Such a potion would fit with Snape's claim in SS/PS that he can "stopper death, assuming that he means "stop death in its tracks" and not "put a cork in a bottle of poison," which even a Muggle can do. Which brings us to the question of what Snape did to counter the curse on the ring Horcrux, an instance when he clearly *did* bring DD back from the brink of death, or at least "prevent him from crossing over." My impression, based on the infuriatingly sparse information that Dumbledore gives Harry, is that Snape used a countercurse, not a potion, since we know that the ring was cursed and that there was no potion protecting it as there was with the locket. ("Timely action" of some sort, but what was it? Something like stabilizing Katie Bell after she was cursed by the necklace, I'm guessing.) I picture a conjured tourniquet followed by a wand applied to Dumbledore's dead hand to suck out the curse, accompanied with an incantation like the one that he used to save Draco, but I'm sure other readers have other mental pictures. But I think he'd have needed to do something much more drastic with the poisoned-memory potion that protected the locket, maybe a combination of Legilimency (reading and removing the poisoned memories) and an antidote against the corrosive elements of the potion). But we don't know what was in the potion what it did besides create physical pain and mental anguish, followed by loss of powers and physical weakness--only that it clearly was *not* a powerful sleeping potion that simulated death. Again, I'm pretty sure that the Draught of Living Death will appear in Book 7, but I think it will be used as a means of faking a death (possibly the Malfoys'), not of "preventing someone from crossing over." That just doesn't fit the description of the potion in SS/PS, IMO. Carol From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Sep 24 04:43:31 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 04:43:31 -0000 Subject: Snape's patronus in Book 7 (Re: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks .....) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140690 Lupinlore: > Well that's an interesting question. If murder tears the soul and > it takes a full soul to make a patronus, this might make sense. > But that assumes facts not in evidence, and if it is true would > lead to all sorts of logical problems and plot holes. Jen: I'm not so sure about plot holes. I can't think of anything this would contradict from what we have in canon. This idea would expand on Lupin's explanation, but not counter it. JKR calls the patronus a 'spirit guardian' which can protect an individual as well as loved ones, and the patronus is used to guard against the souless Dementors. We've never seen the likes of Voldemort, Bella, Peter, Lucius, et. al., cast one. All in all, I can't see the plot hole if it turns out a patronus requires a whole soul. If you mean Snape, anything about his past is an assumption so this wouldn't contradict canon we have so far. Lupinlore: > Indeed, if > producing a patronus requires mostly just "positive" emotion and > one gets great enjoyment and satisfaction out of killing, then I > can see killers being capable of producing very powerful > patronuses. Jen: This is exactly why I think there's a deeper explanation for casting one. Lupinlore: > Snape was a DE for years and still capable of producing a > Patronus. If he could still produce one after betraying Harry's > parents and doing dark and evil things for Voldemort (and I really > don't see him just sitting in his little hole making pretty > potions for Daddy Riddle), I don't see why anyone would be > surprised that he is still able to make one after one more > betrayal and murder. Jen: Snape was a DE for approximately 3 years after leaving Hogwarts until turning to Dumbledore's side. That's two years longer than Draco, and Draco appeared to be given a 'special' assignment rather than a routine one. I've argued in the past Snape murdered as a DE, so I'm not completely opposed to what you're saying. But I could never prove it from the text and then JKR introduced the idea murder causes a rip in the soul. That idea made me back off my original assumptions about Snape because I wondered how Dumbledore accepted him back if he had done extensive killing, and how Snape was able to contain his dark arts habit if he had learned to enjoy murdering. Without getting too repetitive, I believe Dumbledore's measure of true loyalty would not be accepting a sob story. Snape approached Dumbledore about 'rejoining' his side (interesting word that one, GOF) and Dumbledore gave him a *second chance* based on his story-- his story alone was not proof of loyalty however. I see proof much more along these lines: Which wand chose him and what's it used for? When the wand regurgitates past spells using Prior Incantato, what comes out? Can he cast a patronus and if so, what shape? What does his boggart look like? Will he allow memories to be withdrawn from his head for the Pensieve and if so, what are they? Any one of these alone is inconclusive, but taken together with other methods Dumbledore could employ, a pattern develops. And only then would Dumbledore allow an ex-DE into his inner circle. Lupinlore: > Yes, but how would they know it's Snape's patronus if it's > changed? Is there a way of identifying patronuses even when they > are changed? Had Snape seen Tonks's wolf-patronus before and just > not commented on it, or did he have some way of knowing who had > sent it even if it had changed? Once again, that assumes all > sorts of facts about patronuses that aren't in evidence. Jen: What assumptions? Dumbledore taught Order members how to use a patronus for communication and they are the only ones who do it per JKR. We know a patronus can change forms, and JKR said on her website Order members know each other's forms and know exactly who is sending the message. So if a new patronus form were to show up in McGonagall's office, or Lupin's werewolf camp, it wouldn't take long to run through the possibilities, make certain no Order members' forms had changed, then figure out either Snape or Dumbledore (the only missing Order members) sent it. Who would you bet on ? And to answer your first question, Snape's new form would have to reflect his alliance with Dumbledore to be of any real use for proving himself to the Order. Some favor him casting a phoenix, but I'm thinking a lemon drop or cockraoch cluster myself, lol. Does it have to be an animal? If so, I guess the phoenix even though that's a little pat. Mainly I'm considering this theory to explain why in the world JKR continues to withold information about Snape's patronus form and his boggart. Also, what he sees in the Mirror of Erised. There can only be one of two answers I believe: 1) He's evil, has always been evil, and to show his patronus/boggart prior to the tower scene would give it away; 2) He's good, he's always been good since switching sides, and his patronus/boggart/Mirror of Erised symbols will prove his loyalty in Book 7. Maybe if he's out for himself, or just loyal to no one, these symbols could be meaningful as well, but somehow I can't picture the drama in that. Just a personal opinion. Lupinlore: > Also, when asked about Snape's patronus before HBP JKR said she > wouldn't reveal it because it would give too much away. That > implies something about Snape's patronus BEFORE the events on the > tower -- unless you are wanting to postulate that JKR is being > slipshod with language and forgetting that although it might > be "after HBP time" for her it is still "before HBP time" for her > listeners. That's possible, but doesn't strike me as likely in > this case. It is much more plausible that JKR meant exactly what > she said, that Snape's patronus AS OF THE TIME OF THE QUESTION, > i.e. pre-HBP, would give too much away. Jen: You are saying JKR didn't tell us Snape's patronus before HBP because it would give away his evil nature prior to his big reveal on the tower? She could also be saving the surprise that despite what we see on the tower, Snape is not evil and we could deduce that from his patronus. McGongall & Co. are going to be in shock, forget the patronus sign, etc. if that's what JKR needs them to do to save her secret for book 7 ;). Another thing she could have been hiding prior to HBP is that a patronus can change. And if Snape's does indeed change, it would be too much to reveal b/c people would wonder *why* it changed. Jen From djklaugh at comcast.net Sat Sep 24 04:47:41 2005 From: djklaugh at comcast.net (Deb) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 04:47:41 -0000 Subject: Draught of Living Death (Was: Draco and Narcissa in hiding) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140691 > Carol responds: > You snipped most of my post, so I'll put in a link in case anyone > wants to go upthread to the original post: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140681 > > I guess I didn't make myself quite clear here. I didn't mean that the > Draught of Living Death was in itself a way to hide the living though > I do think it makes them seem to be dead. I meant that after the > funeral service, someone in the know would rescue the "bodies" so that > the caskets buried in the Malfoys' graves would be empty (like Mrs. > Crouch's) and someone in the Order would administer the antidote > before sending them into hiding. They'd be like Peter Pettigrew, safe > from retaliation because they were believed by the whole WW to be dead. > > The Draught of Living Death is apparently very much like the poison > given to Snow White by the wicked queen or maybe more like the one > given by the monk to Juliet in "Romeo and Juliet." Snape describes its > effects in SS/PS: > > "For your information, Potter, asphodel and wormwood make a sleeping > potion so powerful it is known as the Draught of Living Death" (SS Am. > ed. 138). I read this to mean that the person is so deeply asleep that > he appears to be dead. It's unclear how long the effects last and > whether it requires an antidote, but it sounds like the perfect way to > fake a death, particularly an AK. (But someone would have to know that > they weren't dead and rescue them, or they'd be buried alive.) Deb writes: I agree with you Carol! I've been thinking that perhaps The Draught of Living Death creates a state rather like suspended animation.... where the person's life forces are so slow they are barely living... yet living all the same. There have been many referrences in the HP books to OOP members who have disappeared as well as other witches and wizards who vanished. My hunch is that DD and the OOP have been hiding some of these *vanished* folks for a long time. The OOP has had spies since LV first started trying to take over the WW including Snape (and the references I remember have always been plural... so there is at least one other spy for the OOP withing the DEs). So they hear through the spy network that LV or the DEs are going after someone in the WW, one or more of the OOP goes to the person's home just prior to or while the DEs are there and spirits them away, gives them the DoLD, then stashes them away some place. I would guess that they are hidden in the Room of Requirement .... but you'd have to know specifically what to ask for in order to find the right manifestation of the RoR. Maybe they even do Time Turner tricks like Harry and Hermione do in POA in order to rescue some of the people LV intended to kill. But there must be some limitations on this as they were not able to rescue the Longbottoms or the Potters. Carol wrote > As for Snape ending the effects of the potion protecting the (fake) > locket Horcrux (poisoned memories or whatever it was), much as I'd > like to believe that Snape rescued Dumbledore from it (with a spell > disguised as an Avada Kedavra), I don't see the evidence for it. That > potion was horrible, and it appeared to me to be killing Dumbledore, > making him weaker by the second as he slid down the wall. I don't see > any evidence that it was *preventing* him from dying, or that Snape > (who assuredly sent Dumbledore over the tower wall, whatever else he > did), released him from the potion's effects. (Can a spell counter a > potion? We've seen curses and countercurses, poisons and antidotes, > but never a spell that can counter a potion or vice versa.) > > I do wonder if there's a potion that can bring a person back from > near-death, rather like phoenix tears but not so difficult to obtain. > (Maybe that's one of the twelve uses of dragon's blood.) Such a potion > would fit with Snape's claim in SS/PS that he can "stopper death, > assuming that he means "stop death in its tracks" and not "put a cork > in a bottle of poison," which even a Muggle can do. Deb writes: Well there is Unicorn Blood but I doubt that the OOP would use that if it requires killing a unicorn in order to get it (as Firenze tells Harry in SS "You will have a half life, a cursed life" if you kill a unicorn and drink the blood) Don't know if unicorns could be persuaded to become blood donors for the OOP. But I would imagine that there is an antidote to the DoLD and that Snape knows how to make it... speculating here - it might have myrlap essence, dragon's blood, a beozar, moonstones, phoenix tears (though I don't know if these could be collected and saved), juice from mimbulus mimbletonia,and wolfsbane - plus the ingredients needed to make the DoLD in the first place - powdered root of asphoedel and infusion of wormwood. Carol wrote: > Which brings us to the question of what Snape did to counter the curse > on the ring Horcrux, an instance when he clearly *did* bring DD back > from the brink of death, or at least "prevent him from crossing over." > My impression, based on the infuriatingly sparse information that > Dumbledore gives Harry, is that Snape used a countercurse, not a > potion, since we know that the ring was cursed and that there was no > potion protecting it as there was with the locket. ("Timely action" of > some sort, but what was it? Something like stabilizing Katie Bell > after she was cursed by the necklace, I'm guessing.) I picture a > conjured tourniquet followed by a wand applied to Dumbledore's dead > hand to suck out the curse, accompanied with an incantation like the > one that he used to save Draco, but I'm sure other readers have other > mental pictures. But I think he'd have needed to do something much > more drastic with the poisoned-memory potion that protected the > locket, maybe a combination of Legilimency (reading and removing the > poisoned memories) and an antidote against the corrosive elements of > the potion). But we don't know what was in the potion what it did > besides create physical pain and mental anguish, followed by loss of > powers and physical weakness--only that it clearly was *not* a > powerful sleeping potion that simulated death. Deb writes: Yes it does seem like Snape used a countercurse or some other spell/incantation to limit the damage from the ring to only DD's hand. The description of DD's "dead" hand struck me as being the opposite of the silver hand LV gave PP in the graveyard. Though I suppose the ring could have been poisoned... a hidden sliver of Basilisk fang with accompanying Basilisk poison perhaps. > Again, I'm pretty sure that the Draught of Living Death will appear in > Book 7, but I think it will be used as a means of faking a death > (possibly the Malfoys'), not of "preventing someone from crossing > over." That just doesn't fit the description of the potion in SS/PS, IMO. > > Carol Deb writes: Again I agree Carol. DoLD will appear in the 7th book... and so will the antidote. I'll bet the "recipe" for the antidote is either in Harry's NEWTs potion book or in Snape's library at Spinner's End... Deb (djklaugh) Wishing she could have a month or so alone in Snape's library... From dossett at lds.net Sat Sep 24 02:38:06 2005 From: dossett at lds.net (rtbthw_mom) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 02:38:06 -0000 Subject: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks Snape is guilty? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140692 Betsy Hp wrote: > > Hmm. I think, actually, it will be very important for *Harry* > > to be the one to finally take a good rational look at the tower > > events. > > How else will he leave his childhood behind? (The child can > > afford to be irrational; the man doesn't have that luxury.) Lupinlore wrote: > Oh, I don't know. We haven't seen Snape being rational the entire > series where Harry or Lupin or James are concerned. It seems to me that it has usually been Hermione's function (aided sometimes by Ron) to get Harry to be rational about things. I've thought that perhaps there would be some big revelation about Snape that would cause all to re-think Snape's role and *then* with Hermione's prodding, Harry can begin to see Snape differently. This is from several days ago, but I wanted to catch up on the posts to be sure somebody else hadn't covered it, but someone asked about whether Trelawny had ever been seen with a wand - I just finished rereading OOTP and in the scene where Umbridge is making Trelawny leave she's described as being on the stairs "wand in hand." So I assume that just because her field is Divination, she also has the requisite magical background! Anyway - just a few thoughts, for what they're worth. Thanks - Pat From fourmoreexits at yahoo.com Sat Sep 24 05:48:39 2005 From: fourmoreexits at yahoo.com (fourmoreexits) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 05:48:39 -0000 Subject: Book 7 Deaths Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140693 Please go easy on me since this is my first post, but I was discussing with a few friends and fanatics the possible final outcome in book 7 after reading book six. I was wondering what people thought about Harry vs LV dying. Someone suggested that Harry was going to die - but I don't think that the overriding theme of the book is about evil conquering. But what about Harry and LV both dying? I don't have the books with me to quote, but since they have to fight until one of them dies - could it end up being both? As in, Harry dies to save the world. And perhaps, going along with what has been suggested in earlier posts that when DD found out that LV had used Harry's blood he had a gleam in his eye means that it will eventually be LV's downfall. Could it be that the 2 are now connected and if Harry were to die LV would too. I don't mean to propose something dumb, I was just thinking about possible final outcomes. Open to any/all suggestions and any comments about possible Harry and LV deaths in book 7. >>Leah From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Sat Sep 24 11:28:55 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 11:28:55 -0000 Subject: Draught of Living Death (Was: Draco and Narcissa in Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140694 >Deb writes: > I agree with you Carol! I've been thinking that perhaps The >Draught of Living Death creates a state rather like suspended >animation.... where the person's life forces are so slow they are >barely living... yet living all the same Elyse: But surely the Death Eaters or Voldemort or whoever the murderer is would check to see whether the victim is actually dead. For instance, if it is Bellatrix who finds Narcissa and Draco's bodies in the Malfoy manor, she would maybe shake the two of them, hold Narcissa's hand in grief as she thinks of their childhood days (Ickle Bella? what a scary thought!)...maybe she thinks they are stunned and tries a few spells on them? She would notice that their eyes are closed, that their bodies are warm and there is a very faint heartbeat. If they were pricked with a needle, they would (presumably) bleed. They would react to certain spells and maybe if she tried to throw the bodies out of the window like Neville's uncle did to him, their magical power would most likely cause them to bounce along the street, not crash down at the bottom like a normal Muggle body. So I believe what Snape said in PS/SS was: "For your information, Potter, asphodel and wormwood make a *sleeping potion* so powerful, it is known as the Draught of Living Death" (pg 103,UK edition) It seems to me that the potion is primarily a *sleeping potion*, but a very potent one; I dont see how the drinker would be affected beyond being put into a deep sleep. Maybe I have missed the canon where it says the potion can be used to fake the effects of death, in which case please remind me of it. From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Sat Sep 24 12:15:26 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 12:15:26 -0000 Subject: Draco and Narcissa in hiding (Was: Snape's future) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140695 > Ceridwen: > I think it has merit. I'm of the opinion that LV won't want Snape > around any more - as has been mentioned, he's done what LV couldn't > do, which makes him both dangerous to LV personally, and a > distraction to any unsatisfied DEs. He's also lost his primary value > to LV's mission, that of being a spy at Hogwarts and in the Order, > IOW, against DD. I think he's sharp enough to know that, and won't > go back. Elyse: I agree that Snape has lost his value as a spy for LV. And yes, it will probably threaten LV, making him insecure, maybe paranoid.(Perhaps he will suspect OFH!Snape himself, in which case, Snape is a goner) But it seems to me that the number of Death Eaters is really pitifully small compared to the number of supporters LV had in WWW1. I counted around sixteen or less in OOTP after which half of them got chucked into Azkaban. So I dont think LV would want to lose Snape just yet. He is after all an experienced DE, a capable one,(unlike the idiots in OOTP that were defeated by a bunch of kids) and a great potion maker to boot. So if Voldy wanted to erase the possible threat of DarkLord!Snape I think he would wait till he got himself a lot more supporters and a lot more power. Then he would make a theatrical killing of Snape in front of all the DE's, complete with Evil Overlord cliched speech and maniacal laughter a la GoF. Either that or send him on a suicide mission like Draco. Ceridwen: > Which would lead to > Snape, alone, and not the Order, managing the entire affair. Which > would be harder, since he doesn't have the resources of many people > at his command, and his own home is probably watched either by DEs or > Aurors or both. I do think Snape could easily live in the Muggle > world, if TS stuck around after the big explosion. It wouldn't be > alien to him. Could Draco and Narcissa? Elyse: A hysterical possibilty, but possible all the same. Can you just imagine them pretending to play happy families in the Muggle world? Imagine Narcissa calling Snape "Severus honey, could you tell me how to use the washing machine?" when she probably never did laundry in her entire life? Or Draco on a Playstation? Or..Or..endless possibilities.The potential for a fanfic if anyone wants it :) But seriously, I dont think the Malfoys would live as Muggles. They are too proud of being pureblood wizards.I think the idea of living as one of them would be totally repulsive to both of them; they are Slytherins after all. And there is no guarantee that LV wouldnt find them there.He knows his own way in the Muggle world too. > Which leads to another problem: What about Snape? Would he 'die' > too? Or, would he be out there, a raving, murdering lunatic, sought > by both DEs and Aurors? That would certainly complicate things for > his plans, and for the Malfoys. Elyse: It would land Snape in A LOT more trouble he is in now, for sure. And I think that as much as he cares for the Malfoy family, he would not sacrifice so much for them either IMO. He'd rather go back to LV as a supporter than be pursued by both sides as a lunatic murderer. Ceridwen: > So, I have two basic problems with the idea: Getting around the > Order's mistrust of Snape (Harry's vouching for what DD said on the > Tower might help if Draco or Narcissa approached them, but not > Snape); and, would Snape 'die' as well (who would 'kill' him?)? > > Otherwise, I think it's quite possible this will happen. If only to > carry out DD's last idea from the Order's perspective. > Elyse: To be honest though, I dont see this happening. I dont think the Order knew anything at all about Draco having to kill DD. If he could not hazard talking to Malfoy about the fake death plan in case LV legilimensed him, why would he risk talking about it to Order members in case they got caught and tortured? Then not only would LV know that the Malfoys might betray him, but the whole point of faking their deaths would be useless; he would know they were still alive. And I hope that DD would not make Snape be their killer. He is already wanted for DD's murder, how many people does he have to "kill", with or without their consent, before he is himself viewed as the crazy murderer people accused Sirius of being? I imagine that if this was the case, the Aurors would have been allowed to shoot him on sight, no trial, nothing. And DD would not allow Snape's safety to be so severely compromised if he was really DD's man. JMHO, of course Elyse From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Sep 24 13:15:59 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 13:15:59 -0000 Subject: Draco and Narcissa in hiding (Was: Snape's future) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140696 Elyse: I agree that Snape has lost his value as a spy for LV. *(snip)* > But it seems to me that the number of Death Eaters is really > pitifully small compared to the number of supporters LV had in WWW1. > I counted around sixteen or less in OOTP after which half of them > got chucked into Azkaban. Ceridwen: But, we were introduced to new DEs in HBP that we hadn't seen before. Amycus and his harpy sister, the Big Blond DE, at least one other, and a member from a peripheral support group, Greyback the Werewolf. I imagine that we haven't been shown exactly how many primary supporters or DEs LV has, or we would have known about these DEs. Though, I suspect that the number of actual DEs is much fewer than the people who give tacit support and don't want to stick their necks out quite that far. Elyse: > So I dont think LV would want to lose Snape just yet. > He is after all an experienced DE, a capable one,(unlike the idiots > in OOTP that were defeated by a bunch of kids) and a great potion > maker to boot. > So if Voldy wanted to erase the possible threat of DarkLord!Snape > I think he would wait till he got himself a lot more supporters and > a lot more power. Then he would make a theatrical killing of Snape > in front of all the DE's, complete with Evil Overlord cliched > speech and maniacal laughter a la GoF. Either that or send him on a > suicide mission like Draco. Ceridwen: If you're right about the number of DEs, then you're probably right about this. When numbers are few, headcount is more than half the battle. Including for recruiting new DEs. It's easier for the more timid to join a proactive group if they see a lot of members, rather than just a few. And, timid members could easily be used for the smaller things, like cursing Muggles. Muggles aren't accorded full person status in the WW, it wouldn't bruise the conscience like cursing a full witch or wizard for folks like that. Elyse: > A hysterical possibilty, but possible all the same. > Can you just imagine them pretending to play happy families in the > Muggle world? Imagine Narcissa calling Snape "Severus honey, could > you tell me how to use the washing machine?" when she probably never > did laundry in her entire life? > Or Draco on a Playstation? Or..Or..endless possibilities.The > potential for a fanfic if anyone wants it :) Ceridwen: Pretty funny! I imagine they could bring along a house elf, no one would notice if they kept to themselves in some suburban neighborhood. I couldn't see them using magic, though, since I seem to recall somewhere that magic is traceable. If the Malfoys couldn't wrap their brains around that, then I suppose they *couldn't* do it. Elyse: > But seriously, I dont think the Malfoys would live as Muggles. > They are too proud of being pureblood wizards.I think the idea of > living as one of them would be totally repulsive to both of them; > they are Slytherins after all. > And there is no guarantee that LV wouldnt find them there.He knows > his own way in the Muggle world too. Ceridwen: People will go to extremes if they think their lives are in danger. Which the Malfoys' may very well be. They may, like the cruise ship ad, 'think of it as a temporary exile'. I think they'd hate it, and months may be too long, not to mention years. I do think Snape could pull it off. But, I imagine he wouldn't be adverse to living off crickets and rats, either, if the need arose. And, yes, LV could well be able to hunt them down in the Muggle world. He knows about phone books/directories. But, would he know the name of Prince? Which is what I would imagine them living under, or some other familial surname with the exception of Black. But, if magic is traceable, then he has a much better chance of finding them. And, he is a powerful wizard (use that direction-finding spell?) Elyse: > It would land Snape in A LOT more trouble he is in now, for > sure. And I think that as much as he cares for the Malfoy family, > he would not sacrifice so much for them either IMO. > He'd rather go back to LV as a supporter than be pursued by both > sides as a lunatic murderer. Ceridwen: I think Bellatrix may peg Snape as the murderer, but not necessarily the Aurors. He may be a candidate, but they could also see it as punishment for Draco not fulfilling the mission, an internal execution amongst DEs. I have a habit of not being quite clear when I get rolling with some idea. Sorry! And, if the Order became involved, that would also smooth the way for Snape to be taken back into the fold, given that he's DDM!Snape. If he's OFH! or ESE! and not trusting of his Overlord, he would still be in the same position, the DEs thinking he's run amok, the Aurors thinking he *may* be responsible. Just, he wouldn't get into the Order again. Was it colebiancardi who said he just may want to get away from all of it? Maybe. And, without Draco/Draco&Narcissa to drag around, it would be easier for him to melt into the night. So, 'kill' them, and have *Draco* contact the Order, since Harry overheard what Dumbledore promised. Elyse: > To be honest though, I dont see this happening. > I dont think the Order knew anything at all about Draco having to > kill DD. If he could not hazard talking to Malfoy about the fake > death plan in case > LV legilimensed him, why would he risk talking about it to Order > members in case they got caught and tortured? Then not only would LV > know that the Malfoys might betray him, but the whole point of > faking their deaths would be useless; he would know they were still > alive. Ceridwen: This is where Harry overhearing them on the Tower comes in. He heard about the plan, he heard about the threat against the Malfoys, he heard DD's suggestions, and he specifically remembers Draco lowering his wand. He feels for Draco now, and would make more of a point in talking about what was said. DD's last words, DD's last lesson, and so on. If Draco contacts the Order, Harry's testimony about what happened on the tower would back him up. And, the evidence of the second broom without a second rider, at least Snape, if not Draco, knows there was someone else, probably Harry under his Invisibility Cloak. So there would be less reticence for Draco contacting, say, McGonagall. Elyse: > And I hope that DD would not make Snape be their killer. > He is already wanted for DD's murder, how many people does he have > to "kill", with or without their consent, before he is himself > viewed as the crazy murderer people accused Sirius of being? > I imagine that if this was the case, the Aurors would have been > allowed to shoot him on sight, no trial, nothing. > And DD would not allow Snape's safety to be so severely compromised > if he was really DD's man. Ceridwen: Yes, if it became commonly known that Snape was the renegade who 'killed' the Malfoys, he would be in worse shape than he is now, though not much worse. Killing Dumbledore? Heck, even LV couldn't do that! But I'm not counting on the DMLE believing beyond a doubt that it was Snape who cast the curse. Given Harry's recall of the events and what was said, which will probably be put into an evidence file for the investigation and search, they could just as easily come to the conclusion that the Malfoys were 'killed' by unspecified DEs on LV's command for not completing the mission properly. Snape could be among those DEs, certainly. And they wouldn't discount it. But they've already made a horrible mistake regarding Sirius, and Fudge sounds regretful (though not remorseful) in the Other Minister chapter about Sirius's innocence yet subsequent incarceration. They may have taken a lesson from that (though I'm dubious, they still seem to think they can operate outside of the law themselves, what with Stan's incarceration and the way they've kept him in til the end of the book). Hard to tell! However, he'll already be an Auror target because he killed DD, and because he's a known DE. It probably couldn't get any worse than it is for him. Maybe that's what he wanted out from? Being a target? Being a target for all sides? Ceridwen, who is having fun discussing possibilities. From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Sat Sep 24 13:27:42 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 13:27:42 -0000 Subject: Straightforward readings? (was Re: Truth vs. what meets Harry's eye ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140697 Elyse here, who has never posted three times for fear of the list elves' powerful brand of magic i.e. throwing me off the list. I'm actually having misgivings about poking my nose into this discussion, because there are so many possible readings that would be considered as straightforward by different people. So before getting into this, I'd just like to say this is my opinion only, and everyone is at perfect liberty to disregard it completely. > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" > wrote: > > > > > If one saw just that scene, I would agree. If one were Harry, I > > would agree. But with 6 books of history & evidence *coupled* with a > > lack of knowledge of what Snape was thinking or feeling or what > > condition DD was actually in or what/if anything passed between those > > two men, and adding in Snape's behavior on the grounds afterwards, I > > think it can still be a pretty straightforward read to believe in DDM! > > Snape. > Lupinlore wrote > > Well, it's POSSIBLE to read that, Susan. But straightforward? IMO, it > assumes far too many facts not in evidence to be straightforward. Of > course, any theory assumes a lot of facts not in evidence at this point. Elyse: Actually to believe in DD'sMan!Snape, the only thing to be assumed is the Legilimency conversation on the tower. I can personally believe that DD is well and truly dead, the AK was a real one, and that DD and Snape had not planned at all for such a situation. I think that it was a totally unexpected and incredibly tight place they found themselves in. So the obvious question was what they were going to do now? I'm not going into all the details of what would have happened if Snape tried to save DD, just an overview: Pessimistic view :Snape falling down dead due to UV, DD killed, Malfoy punished, Harry dead, Fenrir feasting on Hogwarts students etc. Optimistic view: DD,Snape,Harry all alive, certain DE's dead,Malfoy family in hiding,Snape's cover blown hence hiding at 12GP like Sirius etc. So if these situations were analysed by DD and Snape and they came to a mutual agreement where the best one requires DD's sacrifice, a Legilimency conversation is all that is required for DD'sMan!Snape. Lupinlore: > Personally, I think that any of the scenarios commonly trotted out for > DDM!Snape (a legilemency conversation on the tower, a plot between DD > and Snape beforehand, DD not really dead, the AK a fake), would be > unbelievable, incredibly contrived, and extraordinarily poor writing. Elyse: You might not believe this, but I sort of agree with you. After having written about a possible Legilimency conversation. I must admit that it is incredibly contrived. I dont even believe it is possible to converse in Legilimency! There is no canon to provide evidence that it can be done. However, JKR has surprised us before, and she may yet be able to pull it off in a way nobody expects. I have hope that she will do just that. Lupinlore: > Having said that, I can't come up with many scenarios on the other > sides that aren't also contrived and unbelievable, although none so > much so as DDM!Snape. JKR has written herself into a corner with this > one, and I really don't believe she understood quite what a corner she > was in until HBP hit the shelves (at least judging by some of her > reactions in the three part interview). She has gotten herself into > corners before (OOTP for example) and in order to extricate herself had > to do a LOT of handwaving and sweeping of things under rugs, along with > a couple of subtle canon rewrites (i.e. she essentially swept away DD's > speech at the end of OOTP and gave him another one early in HBP). I'm > afraid, regardless of what happens with Snape, that more of the same is > on the horizon. Elyse again: You know, Lupinlore, that you are reiterating the same points you made in your first post after HBP? I was sifting through the early reactions yesterday and I found yours - number 132936 And I was surprised to find you saying: > I thought the whole thing with Snape was well-done but > extraordinarily manipulative. She essentially showed us something > while banging us over the head almost every chapter with reasons why > we shouldn't take what we see at face value -- which itself raises > suspicions that maybe we should do just that. I am, once again, > almost totally bemused. Elyse: Which perhaps means that in your first reading of HBP, you looked for the little clues and red herrings that keep us confused? Which would not make your reading very "straightforward" at all? ;) (I could be wrong of course, it was my interpretation of your post) You seem to be saying that the straightforward reading of Snape, has many clues of why we shouldnt take what we see at face value. It kinda looks like your agreeing with Susan there! And IMHO it seems really bad writing to lay out such a complicated scene like Snape killing DD, and then clues that this might not be exactly what happened, there might be more beneath the surface; just for mind games about reader expectation and misdirection. JKR who has never been concerned about what fans think pre-HBP, has really, as you put it, written herelf into a corner. If she wants to show us ESE!Snape now, it will take a lot of "handwaving and sweeping under rugs" of the pro DD'sMan!Snape clues she herself laid out. Hope this post made sense. Just my opinion, Elyse From bob.oliver at cox.net Sat Sep 24 13:21:13 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 13:21:13 -0000 Subject: A possible patronus for Snape, not Lily or DD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140698 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > Mainly I'm considering this theory to explain why in the world JKR > continues to withold information about Snape's patronus form and his > boggart. Also, what he sees in the Mirror of Erised. There can only > be one of two answers I believe: 1) He's evil, has always been evil, > and to show his patronus/boggart prior to the tower scene would give > it away; 2) He's good, he's always been good since switching sides, > and his patronus/boggart/Mirror of Erised symbols will prove his > loyalty in Book 7. > > Maybe if he's out for himself, or just loyal to no one, these > symbols could be meaningful as well, but somehow I can't picture the > drama in that. Just a personal opinion. Well, I agree that Snape's patronus and boggart are very important clues to his character. JKR has flatly told us that. However, just because they are very important clues to his character that JKR wants to hold back until a dramatic moment does not mean that they would be indicative of his guilt or innocence per se. It's pretty easy to come up with patronus shapes for Snape that would be dramatic, revealing of character, would let secrets out of the bag JKR wants to keep until the right moment, and yet not be clear evidence about whose side he's on. For just one example, let's do a thought experiment: The hints of some kind of influence over Snape wielded by Narcissa are related to the fact that they did at one time have an affair, and that Draco is, in fact, Snape's son (he inherited his physical features from Narcissa, not Lucius). Snape's patronus takes the form of the only blood relative he has, namely Draco Malfoy. Narcissa perhaps thinks that her secret is safe, or maybe even doesn't know it herself (if we want to postulate that she was sleeping with both Snape and Lucius during the same period), but Snape knows Draco is his son, and has been forced all these years to watch from the sidelines as DE!Lucius raised his child. That would be extremely dramatic, reveal a great deal about Snape's character, explain many of his past actions or put them in a new light (did anybody else find the scene of Snape "singing" to an injured Draco eerily suggestive?) but would not be very helpful in determining his ultimate loyalties. Perhaps he treasured in his heart the idea that Narcissa would leave Lucius and marry him, and is embittered that the daughter of the Blacks preferred a pureblood. Perhaps he joined the DEs out of genuine loyalty to Voldy and the affair with Narcissa is only a sideshow. Perhaps he joined DD in a belief that DD would come up with some way to save Draco (DD did seem awfully solitious of Draco, didn't he?). Maybe part of his bitterness toward Harry is based on this -- that, in his mind, it was supposed to be loyal Severus' son who was DD's favorite, but instead the old fool has doted on Harry (a fact that Snape reports with no little savagery at Spinners End) and uses some facile prophecy (Snape reasons) to excuse Harry all his faults, including slicing Draco to ribbons. Maybe he is DDM!Snape and still trying to save Draco. Maybe he is ESE!Snape, his loyalty to Voldemort deepened by the fact that (he believes) DD was content to twinkle benignly in Harry's direction while a gang of Gryffindors bullied Severus' son. Maybe he is OFH!Snape, finally driven to a moment of decision when the only thing he loves in life is threatened. Maybe on the tower DD was saying "Please Severus, don't let your bitterness overcome you, trust me that I care about your son after all." Remember, Severus was not on the tower to see DD's offer to Draco, and maybe he has genuine doubts on this regard. Maybe the argument in the forest is because Severus feels that DD is using Draco as a pawn in a dangerous game (whatever DD actually intends) and he wants to quit the charade, tell Draco everything, and flee. How might this relate to DD's mistakes? He might well have thought Snape's love for his son was a sign of redemption but, being an old and detached man, he forgot that love can drive one to desperation as easily as to nobility -- especially when the loved one is threatened - - and that people who might be able to forgive slights or threats to themselves are unable to forgive slights and threats to a loved one. How might this relate to Snape's action in Book 7? Maybe we will see a Snape who winds from one side to the other, taking whatever action he feels will preserve Draco and himself. He could Crucio Harry one moment, but then switch sides again and charge valiantly to his doom at Harry's side after Voldy AKs Draco in a fit of anger. In any case, there you have it. A patronus form for Snape that would be dramatic, revealing, witheld until a crucial moment, and yet which does not, in and of itself, tell us much of anything about whose side he's actually on. Oh, two more things (I'm not arguing for this theory, by the way, just spinning a mental web). The reason no one has ever mentioned Snape's patronus to Harry is because it IS so intensely personal. No one mentions it to him at the end of HBP because it doesn't speak to the matter at hand. A Draco Patronus, revealing as it is, doesn't reveal good or evil the way a Dumbledore Patronus or Phoenix Patronus or Spider Patronus or Bat Patronus or Lily Patronus would. Also, in this scenario, it would not be Snape who was in love with Lily, but Wormtail. After all, what could be more believable? A mousey, shy, somewhat put upon young man who grows enamored of a pretty girl who is kind to him in a way few girls every bother to be. Said young man begins to develop ever more elaborate fantasies about how the girl would be so much better off with him than with that shallow blowhard she's going out with. Finally said young man begins to indulge in insane schemes to capture the young woman for himself, reasoning that if only his rival could be gotten out of the way she would see how much better off she would be with her true and devoted love. In this scenario, the various hints we have had of Lily's kind and loving nature would not lead toward her taking mercy on Snape, but to the (much more plausible, IMO) scenario of her being kind to James' shy friend, thus inadvertantly setting wheels of obsession and envy into motion (wheels foreshadowed by Slughorn's HBP comment concerning the danger of obsessive love). Lupinlore From kat.rohts at gmx.de Sat Sep 24 12:33:09 2005 From: kat.rohts at gmx.de (bocadetomates) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 12:33:09 -0000 Subject: HBP's potions discoveries - why keep them secret? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140699 bibphile wrote: I don't know why Snape didn't publish his discoveries but it's very possible that he has been teaching them. As far as I remember Harry didn't use a potions book in his second through fifth years. Snape wrote instructions on the board. Snape could easily have been teaching his improved formulas. Depending on how many students you think are in Harry's year it's possible that as many as 25% of the students in Harry's year got O's on their potions O.W.L.S. (more if some made O's but didn't take NEWT level courses). If they were asked to make a potion from their own knowledge without instructions (and I have no idea if they were) then Snape's superior formulas might have contributed to the high number of O's. bocadetomates now: First, thank you for responding. Snape not being a sharer could well explain why he doesn't publish his stuff. Seems like I thought of him as too much of an academic (as they need to publish to keep their positions). As for Snape teaching his discoveries, I agree that it's very possible, but I don't entirely go along the hints or evidence bibphile pointed out. Minor objection about the use of potions books: Harry did use a potions book at least in PoA (and so presumably in CoS, GoF and OOTP, though I haven't looked up canon evidence for that): "This separation from his spellbooks had been a real problem for Harry, because his teachers at Hogwarts had given him a lot of holiday work. One of the essays, a particularly nasty one about shrinking potions, was for Harry's least favourite teacher, Professor Snape, who would be delighted to have an excuse to give Harry detention for a month." So apparently Harry needed his potions book (the one from first year, I guess) to do his homework. Of course, this doesn't contradict Snape writing his own instructions on the blackboard. As for the calculation of all the "Outstanding" people in Harrys NEWT- class: This might be an oversight of mine, but do we really *know* they all had O's in their OWL? Harry for one didn't. I thought that maybe some of them realized a bit quicker than Harry that with Slughorn as a teacher they could take NEWT potions with an E, too. Of course, these are purely mechanical issues, but it didn`t seem to me that the potions NEWT group was larger than the other NEWT classes, indicating an overproportional success of the students at potions. Boca From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 24 13:50:19 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 13:50:19 -0000 Subject: Andromeda (was Draco and Narcissa in hiding) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140700 > Christina: > (On a side note, I'm really curious to know what happened to > Andromeda- Sirius says "Andromeda *was* my favorite cousin," which > suggests to me that she's dead). I agree that Regulus will be a huge > deal in Book 7 (which is why I think he's RAB, but that's a different > thread)- why else would Rowling bring him up? Marianne: Or Sirius used "was" because he was talking about the situation in his distant past when he was still connected to the Black family. In OoP, when Tonks is helping Harry pack, she say's "My mum's got this knack of getting stuff to fit itself in neatly..." That sounds like Andromeda is alive. Which then makes me wonder if she knows the truth about Sirius, or if no one has told her, not even Tonks, because of the need for secrecy. Marianne From bob.oliver at cox.net Sat Sep 24 15:37:24 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 15:37:24 -0000 Subject: Straightforward readings? (was Re: Truth vs. what meets Harry's eye ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140701 > Elyse again: > You know, Lupinlore, that you are reiterating the same points you > made in your first post after HBP? > I was sifting through the early reactions yesterday and I found > yours - number 132936 > > And I was surprised to find you saying: > > I thought the whole thing with Snape was well-done but > > extraordinarily manipulative. She essentially showed us something > > while banging us over the head almost every chapter with reasons > why > > we shouldn't take what we see at face value -- which itself raises > > suspicions that maybe we should do just that. I am, once again, > > almost totally bemused. Yep, and that's still what I think. I've been pretty consistant, or at least tried to be, in saying that I think no explanation of Snape at this point is without severe problems, be it ESE, DDM, or OFH. I think that DDM is the one that is the most deeply problematic and unbelievable, relying as it does on contrived solutions that smack of the worst kind of comic book plotting. Unfortunately, the romantic subplots of HBP, along with the quick resolution of the emotional fallout of Sirius' death (sorry Alla, if you're listening, but I just can't agree with you on that one) show that JKR CAN sink to that level. HBP on its own terms is a pretty good book and certainly much better than OOTP, however as part of a series it shows that JKR does have a bad habit of getting herself into binds (for instance the implicatons about manipulative Dumbledore at the end of OOTP or the problems of how to deal with a sixteen-year-old who has had emotional trauma piled on top of emotional trauma) and then getting herself out again by hand-waving and rug-sweeping. But I also agree with those who find it impossible to believe that Dumbledore could be completely fooled by ESE!Snape for 16 years, or that all of Snape's actions and behaviors can be easily squared with ESE. For this reason, among others, I think that OFH!Snape is the most logical and least problematic, but even there I admit that problems arise very quickly and it's hard to come up with any solution that doesn't automatically call forth a cry of "Now just wait a cotton- pickin' minute, here!" Elyse: > > JKR who has never been concerned about what fans think pre-HBP, has > really, > as you put it, written herelf into a corner. > If she wants to show us ESE!Snape now, it will take a lot of > "handwaving and sweeping under rugs" of the pro DD'sMan!Snape > clues she herself laid out. > Lupinlore: Oh, I agree. ESE!Snape would entail a lot of hand-waving and contrivance, along with a lot of rug-sweeping. DDM!Snape would probably not entail so much rug-sweeping, but it would involve contrivance so thick as to be physically sickening and hand-waving so vigorous that it would threaten the flight path of a 747. Before HBP I was hopeful (although I must admit not as much as I was before OOTP) that JKR would "play fair" in the sense of crafting a solution that brought together major plot threads and developments in a believable and satisfying way. I wasn't expecting "Sixth Sense" but I was hoping that she wouldn't resort to tedious and unimpressive strategems like just sweeping things under the rug; forcing characters to develop in bizarre, rapid, and unbelievable ways; coming up with blatantly manipulative scenes so that she can say later that "Well, Harry was just completely wrong;" or having DD make yet more of his cryptic utterances that reveal so very little and only serve as excuses to spring unbelievable plot twists down the road. Unfortunately, although I still say that HBP is, within its own bounds, a good and entertaining book, it did, particularly in the way it related to past developments, constitute an exercise in cheating on JKR's part. I was among those who thought that JKR made several fairly serious mistakes with OOTP, but I was hopeful that she would try to deal with them honestly. Instead, HBP struck me as being rather reactive. It was as if JKR said: "Whoops! I don't want to deal with a Harry who acts like he's been through multiple traumas in the past few months! Lots of fans didn't like Angry!Harry anyway, and if I deal in any realistic way with Sirius that means having Angry! or even Depressed!Harry. Let's have him have an epiphany off-stage at the Dursleys and put the whole thing aside. Whoops! A lot of fans didn't like all the new characters and expanded Hogwarts, and I've got too much to do in the next book anyway, so let's just go back to the Gryffindor club and have everybody act like all of that didn't happen. Whoops! I didn't mean to imply a lot of the things that people object to in DD's speech, so let's pretend he didn't say that and give him another speech instead. Whoops! Occlumency raises issues about DD and Snape and Harry that go in directions I didn't intend, and I have things for DD to do in his meetings with Harry other than spend a lot of time going into the whys and wherefores and hows of Occlumency. Let's just have Voldemort decide that love hurts too much and we'll sweep aside the whole issue. Besides, it might be convenient later on for Harry not to be able to close his mind. Whoops! People are expecting romantic subplots and I haven't bothered to really lay the foundation. Well, we'll just have to forget all that about a war going on and people dying and all the hints about how things might be different at Hogwarts this year and just get in a lot of jealousy and snogging and stuff. Whoops! I really didn't mean to imply that sextet business, and it takes too much fun out of Hogwarts for there to be too much house unity -- never mind I've been talking about it for three books now. Let's just quietly get rid of all the house unity stuff for a while -- we can have Harry disband the DA, push the Sorting Hat's unity speech off-stage, and emphasize Quidditch, romance, and House rivalry, relegate Luna and, especially, Neville to near cameos, and generally just pretend that all that stuff from OOTP I don't want to deal with never really happened. Whoops! People really like Lupin, and it makes all sorts of sense for him and Harry to become closer in the wake of Sirius' death, but that would violate the strict Hero's Journey formula, and besides it wouldn't do for Harry to have someone around who knew too much about his parents and Snape and the Marauders. So let's send him off on a mission and have him not even write, but we will let him get a thing going with Tonks sense, what the hey, everybody else is getting something going and fans like that ship, anyway. Whoops! Harry was really mad at DD at the end of OOTP, but people didn't like that and it wouldn't do in the Hero's Journey for the mentor to die while the acolyte was still mad. So we'll set all that aside at the Dursleys' as well." So, I've sadly put aside my hopes for a conclusion that is believable and doesn't involve a lot of contrivance, hand-waving, and rug- sweeping. And I have to admit that I don't give much weight to arguments that say "Such and such would be contrived or sweep something under the rug or not make any sense and therefore JKR would not do it." Such and such may well be contrived and may well sweep something under the rug and may well not make any sense. There is a LOT of stuff, as I've said, that I think would be contrived and unbelievable and sweep all sorts of issues under the rug and would not make any sense at all. But does that mean JKR won't do that? Before HBP I would say I'm hopeful she will not. After HBP, I would not be surprised in the least by a solution that is contrived, sweeps multiple issues under the rug, and makes no sense whatsoever from any number of angles. Lupinlore From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sat Sep 24 16:41:21 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 16:41:21 -0000 Subject: Straightforward readings? (was Re: Truth vs. what meets Harry's eye ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140702 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > I > think that DDM is the one that is the most deeply problematic and > unbelievable, relying as it does on contrived solutions that smack of > the worst kind of comic book plotting. Hickengruendler: Like Mad-Eye Moody turning out to be Barty Crouch junior under Polyjuice Potion, who was supposed to be dead, but instead his mother was buried in his place and Crouch junior was being kept prisoner in his father's house? ;-) > > Lupinlore: > > Unfortunately, although I still say that HBP is, within its own > bounds, a good and entertaining book, it did, particularly in the way > it related to past developments, constitute an exercise in cheating > on JKR's part. I was among those who thought that JKR made several > fairly serious mistakes with OOTP, but I was hopeful that she would > try to deal with them honestly. Instead, HBP struck me as being > rather reactive. Hickengruendler: I can't agree with you, at least not completely. IMO, most examples you are mentioning, like Luna and Neville being reduced to cameo status and also less mentioning of house unity, are not signs of JKR being reactive, it are simply signs of a style she used since the very first book. Characters and themes, who have a particularly part in the plot of a certain book, are developed in this book, and if they aren't important in the following book, than they are simply not mentioned as often or not developed at all. If you reread book 1 and 2, and look at Neville's pagetime, than you will find, that the difference is as big, if not bigger, than between book 5 and 6. It book 1, where he had a semi-important part, he appeared nearly as often as Hermione, in book 2 he hardly isn't mentioned at all. This has IMO nothing to do with JKR deciding to take back things or reduce characters she introduced in previous books, it's simply that she is a plot-driven writer and ignores characters/themes, that are not important for the plot of this particular book. That's nothing she decided to do after OotP. I think we won't know until book 7 how important some of the themes and characters really are. In another post, you for example mentioned the reduced part of the Dursleys, and I want to point out, that JKR said long before HBP was released, that book six is the book where they have the least part, and that they become more involved in book 7 again. And even after HBP, she said that there's more to Petunia and what she overheard. I also have to admit, that although I read a lot of different views regarding OotP, I can't remember any critic that mentioned, that they disliked the broadening of Harry's cosmos. In fact, at least from the reviews I read, it was nearly universally seen as the best point of OotP, therefore I really don't know why JKR should take it back. There are a few points where I agree with you, Dumbledore saying that he hoped the Dursleys would raise Harry like a son, *is* IMO a response to the critic regarding Dumbledore's final speech in book 5. And I'm not sure about the romance and if it was a response to the fandom. On the one hand, it was unexpected for me, but on the other hand, I see not much difference between the HBP scenes and the scenes with the snogging couples in the rose bushes during the Yule Ball or with Roger Davies and his girlfriend in OotP. It's just that Harry and his friends where the ones, who got the action this time. But in the whole, I think JKR did, what she did since the very beginning. Hickengruendler From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Sep 24 17:32:41 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 17:32:41 -0000 Subject: Straightforward readings? (was Re: Truth vs. what meets Harry's eye ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140703 Elyse: [...] > After having written about a possible Legilimency conversation. > I must admit that it is incredibly contrived. I dont even believe it > is possible to converse in Legilimency! There is no canon to provide > evidence that it can be done. houyhnhnm: I don't think it is necessary to assume a conversation via Legilimency on the tower. Both Snape and Dumbledore have shown that they are not completely dependent on magical tricks such as Legilimency, but are also adept at ordinary Muggle intuition, observation, and logic. (Snape's puzzle protecting the Stone in PS/SS. Dumbledore's discovery of Fake!Moody based on an inconsistant action) There could have been an instantaneous understanding that passed between them on the tower without the use of Legilimency. ["All that I have to say has already crossed your mind," said he. "Then possibly my answer has crossed yours," I replied.] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Sep 24 17:39:28 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 17:39:28 -0000 Subject: Draught of Living Death (Was: Draco and Narcissa in In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140704 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ellecain" wrote: > ...edited... > > So I believe what Snape said in PS/SS was: > "For your information, Potter, asphodel and wormwood make a > *sleeping potion* so powerful, it is known as the Draught of Living > Death" (pg 103,UK edition) > > It seems to me that the potion is primarily a *sleeping potion*, but > a very potent one; I dont see how the drinker would be affected > beyond being put into a deep sleep. > Maybe I have missed the canon where it says the potion can be used > to fake the effects of death, in which case please remind me of it. > > ellecain bboyminn: Let's not be too logical here, although everything you say is true in the real world, we are not in the real world. For example, look at the deep sleep spell put on Ron and Hermione when they were at the bottom of the lake (Tri-Wiz Tournement - 2nd task). They went without taking a breath for well over an hour, and sufferred no ill effects. Further, you /speculate/ that the bad guys would be in a position to closely inspect the alledged bodies of the Malfoys. If they were declared dead and a funeral were held, especially an open casket funeral, then they were then buried (or appropriately disposed of) that would seem pretty conclusive to most people. Of course, I can see one problem, what happens to the Malfoy estate? Does Lucius have a brother or close cousin, or would it go to Narcissa's sister or cousin? Could it go to Bellatrix who apparently is the oldest even though she is a wanted criminal? Remember, Sirius's estate almost went to her. I guess it's possible for Malfoy's to /conviniently/ leave a Will that leaves everything to Hogwarts in the event that Draco was also dead, but short of that, I don't see how they could maintain control of their money. It's a complicated affair. Further, if the potion didn't create a state that gave the appearance of death, then why is it called the 'Draught of the Living Death'? If it didn't mimick death then it would be called the Draught of Really Deep Sleep. It's difficult to determine how important the potion is, it's certainly been mentioned enough to keep it in our minds, but whether that is significant or a misdirection only time will tell. Steve/bboyminn From Nanagose at aol.com Sat Sep 24 18:04:46 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:04:46 -0000 Subject: Draught of Living Death (Was: Draco and Narcissa in In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140705 > bboyminn: > Of course, I can see one problem, what happens to the Malfoy estate? > Does Lucius have a brother or close cousin, or would it go to > Narcissa's sister or cousin? Could it go to Bellatrix who apparently > is the oldest even though she is a wanted criminal? Remember, > Sirius's estate almost went to her. I guess it's possible for > Malfoy's to /conviniently/ leave a Will that leaves everything to > Hogwarts in the event that Draco was also dead, but short of that, I > don't see how they could maintain control of their money. It's a > complicated affair. Christina now: Lucius Malfoy isn't dead though, just imprisoned. I personally think he'll be out before long (especially since the Dementors have joined up with LV), but even if he's not, I think he'll retain the estate. Sirius laid claim to 12GP, even though he was considered an escaped convict at the time he lived in the house. I'd guess that the house belonged to him even when he was physically *in* prison; otherwise, possession would have trickled through the family until it belonged to someone that was not in prison (Narcissa perhaps). Also, Sirius retained his monetary assets even while in Azkaban, using his savings account to buy Harry the Firebolt once he escaped. Sirius's estate almost went to Bella, but only *after* he had died. Christina From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Sep 24 18:11:14 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:11:14 -0000 Subject: The Powerful Slytherin (Re: Snape/Harry coincidence?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140706 houyhnhnm: > > "There's no need to call me 'sir', Professor." Betsy Hp: > Hmmm. I actually saw this as a remnant of Harry's childishness. > Snape is trying to teach him to do non-verbal spells, the difference > between an adult wizard and a child, and Harry, rather than trying > to learn, acts like an adolescent. houyhnhnm: Prior to Harry's remark there is a lot of familiar language leading the reader to expect the same old same old. Snape speaks "curtly", "dismissively". His gaze lingers on Harry "maliciously". Harry reflects "bitterly". He maintains a silent snarky running commentary on everything Snape says. Snape looks "just as much like an overgrown bat as ever". Harry waits "on tenterhooks". He replies "stiffly". Then out of the blue "The words escaped him before he knew what he was saying ... 'There's no need to call me 'sir', Professor.'" It still strikes me that a code shift has taken place. Maybe Harry's words cannot be considered fully mature, but it seems to me they do represent an advance over the childish defensive stew he was in just moments before. It is certainly a more *Snape-like* response. It doesn't lead to any improvement between them, unfortunately. As Jen said, the eavesdropper reveal (and the events on the tower) put the kibosh on any progress Harry could have been making toward a better relationship with HBP/Snape. (And I agree that the language used in Snape's response to Harry in the classroom that day is probably due to a change in Harry's point of view rather than a change in Snape's behavior.) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Sep 24 18:24:53 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:24:53 -0000 Subject: Lucius in Prison (was: Draught of Living Death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140707 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spotsgal" wrote: > > bboyminn: > > Of course, I can see one problem, what happens to the Malfoy > > estate? > > ...edited... > > I guess it's possible for Malfoy's to /conviniently/ leave a Will > > that leaves everything to Hogwarts ... but short of that, I don't > > see how they could maintain control of their money. It's a > > complicated affair. > > > Christina now: > > Lucius Malfoy isn't dead though, just imprisoned. I personally > think he'll be out before long ... but even if he's not, I think > he'll retain the estate. > ...edited... > > Christina bboyminn: First, I assumed that Lucius would fake!die and go into hiding along with Draco and Narcissa. To protect Draco, you must protect his family, as long as one of his family is wandering around loose, Draco can be threatened. 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. Side note; when Sturgess Podmore, one of the Order, was caught and sentence for nearly the same thing, he got 6 months. I have no doubt that Lucius will be out of prison very soon. Based on previous sentences I'm guessing 'trespass and attempted theft' warrants about a year to a year and a half in prison. Of course, this only applies to DE's who were not previously under sentence for other crimes. I'm sure the Lestrange's were sentenced to life or near life, so those sentences still hold. Lucius and a very few of his friends were not under a previous court sanctions, and therefore would only be under the sentence for 'trespass and attempted theft' which again I assume is relatively short. I fully expect the see Lucius completely free in the next book. He may even get out over the summer as that constitues a full year in prison. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Sep 24 18:38:49 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:38:49 -0000 Subject: Draco and Narcissa in hiding (Was: Snape's future) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140708 Colebiancardi: > I think it has merit as well, except I don't think it is the Draught > of Living Death(more on that later). I think DD was going to do some > spell or potion(hence Snape's involvment) to make the Malfoy family > *die*, when in fact they were alive and unhappy, protected by the > Filelius Charm. I think that this is what happened to Regulus Black(I > am in the camp that he is not dead, but the original "You cannot be > killed if you are already dead" wizard). This goes back to my Snape > theory on why DD trusts him and that Snape delivered Regulus to DD, > instead of killing him on LV's orders. I think that Regulus will > play a huge part in book 7 - since Rowling isn't going to introduce > any new characters, he would be a good bet, IMHO. Potioncat: Draught of Living Death could certainly play a role. Any number of "scenarios" might work. It's up to JKR, of course. I used to think Regulus was still alive too. I don't think so now. And as much I'd really like to think Ms. Bones and Ms Vance are in hiding...I think these deaths help to bring home the that there is a war going on. On the other hand, no pun intended, we've already seen one death faked. And who's to say we know the whole story? Interesting isn't it, that Pettigrew is so close to Snape? Now, would the Malfoys fuss more over losing their money or their fingers? Potioncat From bibphile at yahoo.com Sat Sep 24 20:43:26 2005 From: bibphile at yahoo.com (bibphile) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 20:43:26 -0000 Subject: HBP's potions discoveries - why keep them secret? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140709 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bocadetomates" wrote: > > bocadetomates: > "This separation from his spellbooks had been a real problem for > Harry, because his teachers at Hogwarts had given him a lot of > holiday work. One of the essays, a particularly nasty one about > shrinking potions, was for Harry's least favourite teacher, Professor > Snape, who would be delighted to have an excuse to give Harry > detention for a month." > So apparently Harry needed his potions book (the one from first year, > I guess) to do his homework. Of course, this doesn't contradict Snape > writing his own instructions on the blackboard. > I'd forgotten about that. I only looked up the book list for each year. Of course, it's also possible that Harry needed "One Thousand Migical Herbs and Fungi." The titale makes it sound like it has the magical properties of plants and not formulas and we know from SS/PS that it's sometimes used in potions. But you could also be easily right about Harry still using the old potions book. > As for the calculation of all the "Outstanding" people in Harrys NEWT- > class: > This might be an oversight of mine, but do we really *know* they all > had O's in their OWL? Harry for one didn't. I thought that maybe some > of them realized a bit quicker than Harry that with Slughorn as a > teacher they could take NEWT potions with an E, too. > > Of course, these are purely mechanical issues, but it didn`t seem to > me that the potions NEWT group was larger than the other NEWT > classes, indicating an overproportional success of the students at > potions. > It's not certain. It's just that all ten other students already had their books. So either ther other Heads of House informed their students earlier that Slughorn would be the new potions teacher and would accept students with E's or they all had O's. The class didn't seem any larger than the other NEWT classes, but that doesn't mean there weren't more O students. The stdents don't like Snape. It's entirely possible that many eligable students decided not to take potions before they knew Slughorn would be teaching it or grew to not like the subject at all because of Snape. Or, like you said, some of the students could have E's. It just seems odd to me that they would knowin advance that E students could take the class and Harry and Ron wouldn't. From Meliss9900 at aol.com Sun Sep 25 01:13:08 2005 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 21:13:08 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: RAB Message-ID: <7d.71c1eda8.306753a4@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140710 In a message dated 9/23/2005 2:54:36 PM Central Standard Time, amiabledorsai at yahoo.com writes: I wonder if Amelia Bones had a first name she didn't care for. And if Susan has a new locket. Amiable Dorsai I dunno about a different first name but Amelia's Middle name is "Susan." I think in this instance Regulus is the culprit. And that the locket was at Grimmauld Place. I wonder where they hauled all of that stuff away too? Melissa [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dossett at lds.net Sat Sep 24 21:04:22 2005 From: dossett at lds.net (rtbthw_mom) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 21:04:22 -0000 Subject: Draco and Narcissa in hiding (was:Snape's future) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140711 I am enjoying all the possibilities about the Draught of Living Death, but would like to suggest one more possibility for getting Draco and Narcissa into hiding. There have been so many deaths in WWW1 and WWW2 already where no bodies were ever found - Moody showing Harry the old picture of Order members where he tells him of several members who just disappeared and were never found. This tactic would work well for Draco and Narcissa, as well. All that would be necessary is to put out the story that somebody captured them. Lots more simple, but JKR usually has unique ways of moving plot along so. . . Thanks! ~Pat From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Sep 25 03:49:32 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 03:49:32 -0000 Subject: Who is hidden? Was Re: Draco and Narcissa in hiding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140712 > Saraquel: > I > think that the wizard in hiding is Caradoc Dearborn - yes my little > pet obsession :-) He is the one whom Moody described from the photo > (OotP party) as disappearing without a trace. One possibility for > him is that he may have been the extra person at GH who told DD what > happened. IMO, whoever was at GH told DD what happened, otherwise > how would he know that Lily sacrificed herself and her love > protected Harry. The problem being of course, if it was somebody on > the side of good, why didn't they help Lily out and snuff it in the > process, if it was somebody on Voldemort's side, what the hell were > they doing telling DD. The only person who could fulfil that > argument is Snape. But I don't think Snape was at GH. (I know I have > a cast iron reason for thinking that, but it seems to have just > disappered down the black hole of my memory at the moment :-)) > > Anyway, further supporting evidence (though of course nowhere near > conclusive) is that Caradoc is a Welsh name (correct me if I'm > wrong), so he could well have been in the area. Also, there is a > very interesting myth about Caradoc being bitten by a snake and > spending 12 years in hiding - here's the link - actually I can't > find the original source I used, but here is a similar one > http://tentacle.net/~dawnhawk/witchcraft/cmyth4.html > Valky: Woot! nice find Saraquel. Lately I've been getting myself tangled in mythology with parallels to Harry's Horcrux quest. The number is increasing ever so rapidly, but it wouldn't surprise me if JKR manages to get a lend out of all of them in her book seven story, there's no question of her ability to do that, in my mind. So in that case I have been finding myself gleefully collecting the myths that parallel each other as well and sticking them side by side in a Horcrux myth tree. Now the joining of other sentient things with serpentine things has formed the basis of my search for Horcrux-like myths. So, it's elementary, my initial thoughts about Caradoc were - "Horcrux bearer!". This is where it gets complex and interesting: (my favourite part which I know will incite replies that I am overcomplicating it etc.. never mind telling me so unless you're congratulating me on fulfilling my purpose to do just that and if you don't enjoy convoluted excessive complexity in your sleuthing you might want to jump ship now ) Caradoc and Guinier were associated in other mythology with a Boars head. The Boar itself I have similarly associated through Greek Mythology with the Centaur Chiron (Chiron means Hand while Caradoc's second name briefbras means short arm) and so far I have been tentatively placing the Hufflepuff Chalice under the heading of this semigroup of myths, and the time of this part of the journey seems to have association with winter. There is a following vague association with St Mungos falling under this heading, but I am not sure how to fit St Mungos and Centurs together lol. Unless there really is a cure for the Longbottoms which would be a lovely thing. I hope some of these notes will help Saraquel in her pet project of Caradoc Dearborn :D Let me know if you find anything addable Saraquel! My personal favourite, and I think I have it fairly well set out, is, I think, leading to the Ravenclaw object. I have mentioned it before, there are some possibilities in evidence that the myth of Heracles defeat of the Hydra will be echoed in part of his Horcrux journey. This one is my favourite because I am associating the many serpentine Hydra heads with a Horcrux that is still locked in its full Voldemort protection, which means there is lots to draw upon from the cave in HBP. The Hydra has One immortal head, which Heracles destroys last, meshing quite nicely with the concept of a Horcrux in the centre of a bunch of dark magic protections. The Hydra itself is associated with a Raven and a Cup, I am tending towards thinking that the trio will think they are on the trail of the cup here, but probably find the Ravenclaw object instead, Ravens are notorious trickster animals in many mythologies, and shapechanging is often a specialty in the myths. The trickster mythology also places this object near to the legendary HP tricksters Gred and Forge which would be Diagon alley, in turn DA seems to be a place where the Ravenclaw Horcrux might be located.. So it all meshes well. HBP gives us canon that Harry feels a tingling sensation in the cave, he wonders if he is sensing the magic of Voldemort that DD is telling him about. If we go back to PS/SS we see Harry experience a similar feeling when he enters Ollivanders, as though the dust itself was tingling with some secret magic.. A further analysis of the Tarot associations with the four Houses of Hogwarts thus: Founders Houses: Slytherin - Water - Cup Hufflepuff - Earth - Pentacle Gryffindor - Fire - Wand Ravenclaw - Air - Sword Known Objects: Slytherin - Earth - Pentacle - Ring/Locket Hufflepuff - Water - Cup - Chalice Gryffindor - Air - Sword - Sword This pattern of the Founders objects being associated with the complementary element of their house places a _Wand_ firmly in the empty space left by the Ravenclaw object. Which again points us to Ollivanders mysteriously abandoned shop. Very neat very neat.. but not all my own work. Heres where I say ciaou, just realising it might be profitable to look up mythological associations with Ollie and diagonals etc.. Valky Everquesting for Horcruxes.. :D From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sun Sep 25 07:16:23 2005 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 00:16:23 -0700 Subject: Potions countering Spells and the other way around Message-ID: <700201d4050925001623d9c2fc@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140713 Carol wrote: As for Snape ending the effects of the potion protecting the (fake) locket Horcrux (poisoned memories or whatever it was), much as I'd like to believe that Snape rescued Dumbledore from it (with a spell disguised as an Avada Kedavra), I don't see the evidence for it. That potion was horrible, and it appeared to me to be killing Dumbledore, making him weaker by the second as he slid down the wall. I don't see any evidence that it was *preventing* him from dying, or that Snape (who assuredly sent Dumbledore over the tower wall, whatever else he did), released him from the potion's effects. (Can a spell counter a potion? We've seen curses and countercurses, poisons and antidotes, but never a spell that can counter a potion or vice versa.) Kemper now: Skele-Gro (potion) was used to 'counter' Gilderoy's curse (blundered spell). Well, maybe more accurately, Skele-Gro countered the damage already done by the curse. But then, isn't that still the antidote to that particular spell's poison? If so, then a potion can be a countercurse. So even though Dumbledore may have a withered wand-arm due to the ring!horcrux curse, the withered hand (and whatever internal ailing) is the effect. Snape could have used a potion to counter the curse's effects for Dumbledore. So I would argue that Snape could, to use Carol's word, 'release' Dumbldore from the effects of the potion from the cave. Kemper [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Sun Sep 25 11:47:34 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 11:47:34 -0000 Subject: Lucius in Prison (was: Draught of Living Death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140714 > 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 From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Sep 25 05:27:19 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 05:27:19 -0000 Subject: Straightforward readings? (was Re: Truth vs. what meets Harry's eye ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140715 > Hickengruendler: > > Like Mad-Eye Moody turning out to be Barty Crouch junior under > Polyjuice Potion, who was supposed to be dead, but instead his mother > was buried in his place and Crouch junior was being kept prisoner in > his father's house? ;-) > Yeah, I have to admit I never had much admiration for that one - particularly the part about how DD managed not to notice one of his oldest friends was not, in fact, one of his oldest friends. Think of all the little in-jokes and brief references of which Crouch must have been totally ignorant, and yet DD managed to completely miss it all. Of course there is also the fact that, having managed to fool Albus, Barty proceeded forward with a standard comic-book villain's "ridiculously complex, needlessly dramatic, self- destructively intricate" plot. He could have created a port-key out of a book, slipped it into Harry's hand some quiet evening, and then said "No Albus, I've not seen the boy. Are you sure you've checked everywhere? Everybody's been watching the tournament, you know." Instead, he launches a bizarre and inexplicable plot that manages to put the boy he wants to kidnap constantly in the public eye -- and constantly in danger of being killed or injured, to boot. > > I also have to > admit, that although I read a lot of different views regarding OotP, > I can't remember any critic that mentioned, that they disliked the > broadening of Harry's cosmos. In fact, at least from the reviews I > read, it was nearly universally seen as the best point of OotP, > therefore I really don't know why JKR should take it back. > Well, I'll have to disagree there. I saw a lot of complaint about it -- although I don't remember if much of it was on HPfGU, it may have been mainly a Leakey Cauldron and FictionAlley phenomenon. Mostly it centered on JKR dropping in new characters late in the game for questionable reasons, rather than developing the interesting characters she already had. For instance, Luna got a lot of comments like "Cute, but WHERE has she been the last four years and WHY is she showing up just now?" and regarding Tonks there was a lot of "That's nice, but what, exactly, is the point?" I agree that JKR has always had the habit of letting plot dominate over character -- not a good habit. But as long as the plots were very well done and the characters fairly unproblematic, it didn't amount to a major problem. Unfortunately, starting with OOTP, it became just that. As someone recently said in a friend's chat room "Good writing should never let plot over ride character, and unfortunately lately in the Potterverse plot has not only ruled character, it has skewered it through the stomach with a long sword." Lupinlore From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Sep 25 14:53:46 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 14:53:46 -0000 Subject: Straightforward readings? (was Re: Truth vs. what meets Harry's eye ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140716 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > Hickengruendler: > > > > Like Mad-Eye Moody turning out to be Barty Crouch junior under > > Polyjuice Potion, who was supposed to be dead, but instead his > mother was buried in his place and Crouch junior was being kept prisoner in his father's house? ;-) > > Lupinlore: > Yeah, I have to admit I never had much admiration for that one - particularly the part about how DD managed not to notice one of his oldest friends was not, in fact, one of his oldest friends. Think of all the little in-jokes and brief references of which Crouch must have been totally ignorant, and yet DD managed to completely miss it all. Pippin: Why would he have to be totally ignorant? He had the real Moody under the Imperius curse and Voldemort "the most accomplished Legilimens the world has ever seen" to conduct the interrogation. He could have relived every single one of Moody's interactions with DD before he ever arrived at Hogwarts. Lupinlore: > Of course there is also the fact that, having managed to fool Albus, Barty proceeded forward with a standard comic-book villain's "ridiculously complex, needlessly dramatic, self- destructively intricate" plot. Pippin: So, you think it would have been a more interesting series if Harry hadn't participated in the TWT? Anyway, grandiose absurd plots are a Voldemort specialty, and it was his idea, not Barty's. He was already discussing it with Wormtail before Barty had been rescued. I think JKR's detachment affects the way Harry interacts with people as much as the needs of the plot. She probably didn't know the names of everyone in her class when she was in school just as Harry doesn't, she probably joins clubs and doesn't keep up with the members after she leaves, and generally conducts her life in a way that Slughorn would find incomprehensible. But I don't think JKR has introduced plot elements randomly with no notion of how they are supposed to play out in the last book. I think she knows perfectly well where she is going, though as she said, it may not be where many of the readers want to go. She said something about only having seven readers left when she was done. The series was planned and plotted with no idea that she would become a popular writer, and she may have other things in mind than suiting the story to what the fans of popular stories want. Plenty of people were hoping that JKR would introduce a love interest for Lupin and that we would meet one of Lily's old friends; I guess Tonks and Slughorn just weren't what they had in mind. A lot of people seem to think the straightforward reading is for Snape to be the symbol of all that's wrong in a world where children are picked on, and they want him to have done something obviously and seriously wrong; they want him to have killed DD in cold blood so that they can feel good about it when he's caught and punished. Fine by me...but wasn't the straightforward reading of Snape that he saw Harry as a symbol of the way he got picked on when he was a kid, and kept trying to catch Harry doing something wrong so he could feel good about it when Harry was punished? Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 25 15:09:07 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 15:09:07 -0000 Subject: Straightforward readings? (was Re: Truth vs. what meets Harry's eye ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140717 Pippin: > A lot of people seem to think the straightforward reading is for Snape > to be the symbol of all that's wrong in a world where children are > picked on, and they want him to have done something obviously > and seriously wrong; they want him to have killed DD in cold blood > so that they can feel good about it when he's caught and punished. Alla: Just a bit of technical correction here, Pippin. And of course I am speaking for myself only, so MY straightforward reading for Snape is that he DID something wrong. ( You know, helping Harry to become an oprphan, bullying the children, killing Dumbldore to me count as wrong). That is why I would feel good when he is caught and punished. Believe me, to me Snape did enough to deserve punishment already. Pippin: > Fine by me...but wasn't the straightforward reading of Snape that he > saw Harry as a symbol of the way he got picked on when he was a kid, > and kept trying to catch Harry doing something wrong so he could > feel good about it when Harry was punished? > Alla: Erm... Yes. Sorry, but what is your point? If it is a comparison between readers who are just as mistaken about Snape doing something wrong as Snape is mistaken about Harry, well, then I beg to differ. As I said regardless on which side Snape is to come out he already did enough in my mind to deserve punishment. JMO, Alla. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Sep 25 16:14:05 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 09:14:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Articles on Wizards, Muggles and Genetics In-Reply-To: <7d.71c1eda8.306753a4@aol.com> Message-ID: <20050925161406.82512.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140718 One of my fave blog sites has an entry on the HP books and notes some articles that have been published lately - by real scientists! - on the wizard gene issue. As the blog post has a number of links, I'm posting that rather than individual links to each article: http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/09/another-reason-to-love-harry-potter.html Enjoy. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Sep 25 16:16:29 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 09:16:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Book 7 Deaths In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050925161629.73403.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140719 --- fourmoreexits wrote: > Please go easy on me since this is my first post, but I was > discussing with a few friends and > fanatics the possible final outcome in book 7 after reading book > six. I was wondering what > people thought about Harry vs LV dying. Someone suggested that > Harry was going to die - > but I don't think that the overriding theme of the book is about > evil conquering. But what about Harry and LV both dying? Welcome to the list, Leah. We've kicked this idea around a lot over the years and we really haven't settled on an answer. Best we can say is that it's a possibility, but personally I can't see JKR doing that. Magda __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Sep 25 17:02:11 2005 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 25 Sep 2005 17:02:11 -0000 Subject: Reminder - Weekly Chat Message-ID: <1127667731.12.8144.m27@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140720 We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. Weekly Chat Date: Sunday, September 25, 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 parisfan_ca at yahoo.com Sun Sep 25 17:17:38 2005 From: parisfan_ca at yahoo.com (laurie goudge) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 10:17:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Book 7 Deaths In-Reply-To: <20050925161629.73403.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050925171738.23147.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140721 --- Magda Grantwich wrote: > > > Please go easy on me since this is my first post, > but I was > > discussing with a few friends and > > fanatics the possible final outcome in book 7 > after reading book > > six. I was wondering what > > people thought about Harry vs LV dying. Someone > suggested that > > Harry was going to die - > > but I don't think that the overriding theme of the > book is about > > evil conquering. But what about Harry and LV both > dying? > > > everyone has their own opinions on this but I see it working out one of four ways: a) Lord V dies at the hands of Harry. Harry lives and has to deal with life after Lord V. b) BOTH Lord V AND Harry die in an epic battle and the wizarding world makes Harry sort of a maryter for all time. c) Lord V dies at the hand of someone else and Harry lives not having any hand in the death of Lord V d) Harry dies at the hand of Lord V who is then promptly offed by a third party. now I am rooting for choice a or b; but being very practical this is what I had come up with. laurie __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 25 17:56:15 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 17:56:15 -0000 Subject: Straightforward readings? (was Re: Truth vs. what meets Harry's eye ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140722 Alla wrote: > > MY straightforward reading for Snape is that he DID something wrong. ( You know, helping Harry to become an oprphan, bullying the children, killing Dumbldore to me count as wrong). That is why I would feel good when he is caught and punished. > > Believe me, to me Snape did enough to deserve punishment already. Carol responds: To me, the straightforward reading is that Snape regretted having told Voldemort the Prophecy, *returned* to "our side" and began spying for Dumbledore "at great personal risk" (GoF) at least several months before Voldemort's fall since he began teaching Potions two months before Godric's Hollow, attempted to tell James that Sirius was a spy but was "arrogantly" rebuffed (PoA--the fact that he was wrong about *who* the spy was is immaterial here), and expressed remorse when the Potters died (HBP). All straight from the books. Moreover, actions in the HP books have unintended consequences--Snape's revelation of the Prophecy does lead (despite his remorse) to Harry's becoming an orphan, but it also leads to Voldemort's vaporization, giving the WW a respite from Voldemort for nearly fourteen years (from GH to the restoration of LV's body at the end of GoF). Not that Snape deserves credit, only that if it weren't for his action, LV1 would not have ended. As for bullying children, Snape's sarcasm is mild compared with the physical harm that other characters have inflicted on Harry (the Dursleys locking him in his room with bars on the window and only cold soup to eat, Voldemort and Crouch!Moody Crucioing him and trying to kill him, Umbridge trying to Crucio him and making him write lines in his own blood). As JKR and Dumbledore seem to think, kids need to learn to deal with sarcasm and dislike on the part of their superiors, and (IMO) Harry needs to just get over it. (It's possible he would have done so if it hadn't been for his discovery that Snape told Voldemort the Prophecy--"Sirius Black murdered my parents" all over again--and, of course, the death of Dumbledore. The relationship between Harry and Snape must be made as bad as possible before their differences are resolved.) Snape not only saved Harry from Quirrell's curse in SS/PS (Hermione's interference notwithstanding) and later refereed a Quidditch game to keep it from happening again, he tried to save HRH from a werewolf and a man he believed to be a murderer in PoA (he conjured stretchers and brought them all to safety after he regained consciousness), and he rescues Neville from Crabbe's stranglehold in OoP. If he had not sent the Order to the MoM, Harry and all his friends would be dead. Surely all of this makes up for insensitive remarks about Hermione's teeth or using Trevor (whom he knew would not be poisoned) to test Neville's antidote or giving Harry zeroes for spilled potion. Or if it doesn't, it's the reader's personal feelings and educational philosophy (one to which Snape himself has never been exposed), not the text itself, that shapes a desire for punishment. (Boggart!Snape dressed in Neville's grandmother's clothes and the insults from the Marauder's Map are punishment in kind--not very effective in making him a kinder person, were they?) The tower incident does appear *on a first reading* to be Snape cold-bloodedly killing Dumbledore with an Avada Kedavra curse, but only if we ignore everything we have already learned about Snape throughout the series (including HBP), as well as clues within the scene itself (no blinding flash or rushing sound, etc.) and the parallel to Harry in the cave chapter. A straightforward reading must consider *all* the evidence, not just what Harry chooses to see or how he interprets what he sees. Take away his feeling of terror and his hatred of Snape, his interpretation (via the narrator) of Snape's facial expression, and consider only what actually happens--Snape's gaze into Dumbledore's eyes, the unspoken message, the atypical "Avada Kedavra"--and a straightforward reading shows us that *we don't know* what really happened (except that Dumbledore is really dead). Snape's actions afterwards, especially his advice to Harry, also make any apparent loyalty to Voldemort questionable. ("Close your mouth" means "Use nonverbal spells, you dunderhead!" And of course controlling his hatred and not using Dark magic is essential to his victory over LV, but Harry doesn't want to hear it because it comes from Snape.) JKR provided us with clues throughout OoP that Crouch!Moody wasn't what he seemed. I think she's providing us with clues that Snape isn't what he seems, either--and she's been doing so since Book 1. I will be very surprised if he's nothing but a villain who's been waiting for his opportunity to kill Dumbledore all these years--a mere plot device and instrument of evil. (As an aside, what has killing Dumbledore gained him other than his life and the fulfillment of the third provision of his vow? He's lost everything--mentor, job, respect, trust, freedom. If he's also suffering a personal hell of remorse, surely that's punishment enough. I, for one, don't believe in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.) Carol, not quite resisting the temptation to state once more that there's more to Snape than meets the eye, as we will surely discover in Book 7 From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Sep 25 18:24:43 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 18:24:43 -0000 Subject: HBP's potions discoveries - why keep them secret? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140723 Bibphile wrote: > It's not certain. It's just that all ten other students already had > their books. So either ther other Heads of House informed their > students earlier that Slughorn would be the new potions teacher and > would accept students with E's or they all had O's. Potioncat: I thought the little surprise...Slughorn is Potions; Snape is DADA...was nicely set up. I suspected it while Harry and DD were talking to Slughorn. If JKR had been a little more realistic, she wouldn't have been able to pull it off. Think about it: before school starts the kids get their book lists. If they don't know what they're taking, how do they know what to buy? OK, so everyone gets the complete list and you buy according to what you plan to study. Does Minerva really not know until the first morning of school what the OWL results are? We're told she confirms the results that morning. That would mean the teachers for the upper classes have no idea how many kids are in their classes...which at least for Hagrid seems to be true. We took Snape's first class speech in OoP very seriously. He claimed to have a high pass rate and gave a look to Neville and Harry. So nitpickers that we are, we came up with percentages and numbers; we decided or at least discussed "high pass rate compared to what?" We were ready to have our calculations confirmed.....but we didn't get it. We've no idea how what the results were for any class in Harry's year. Out of the 40 named students, 12 are taking Potions, but that doesn't tell us much. We don't know if Neville passed Potions (Do we?) We don't know if Snape looked at the numbers and visited his wrath upon any who failed. We do know that Snape wrote the potions instructions on the board. I don't recall if we ever see the students using books in class. He does give a fair amount of research type homework. It's possible the potions texts (I think Snape assigned two) are not for specific potions but rather for properties of ingredients or potions in general. We know that Hermione did much better at potion making when she followed the instructions on the board than she did following the instructions from the book. So I would think he was teaching his improved version of potions. Maybe, if Snape lives, he'll publish that Potions book. He'll have lots of time in Azkaban. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Sep 25 18:49:41 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 18:49:41 -0000 Subject: Straightforward readings? (was Re: Truth vs. what meets Harry's eye ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140724 > Pippin: > > Fine by me...but wasn't the straightforward reading of Snape that he saw Harry as a symbol of the way he got picked on when he was a kid, and kept trying to catch Harry doing something wrong so he could feel good about it when Harry was punished? > > > > > Alla: > > Erm... Yes. Sorry, but what is your point? If it is a comparison between readers who are just as mistaken about Snape doing something wrong as Snape is mistaken about Harry, well, then I beg to differ. Pippin: I was thinking of the readers who were saying that they were relieved, in a way, that Snape had killed Dumbledore, because they didn't have to reconcile how someone who picked on kids could be on the good side. (This, despite that fact that history, myth and legend are full of heroes who were badly behaved when they weren't heroing, though admittedly this sort of thing has been rare in children's books.) Now, Snape, being a fictional construct, has never picked on any real children, so I suppose that to engender such a desire he must represent real people who pick on children, in the same way that Harry, to Snape, represented the people who bullied him. In Snape's case, this old prejudice led him to place too much reliance on superficial evidence and biased witnesses, including himself. Whether readers are making the same mistake is for them to consider. Related to this, there is the question of whether it's straightforward to suppose that one can exchange information or have some kind of a conversation through legilimency. In OOP, Voldemort was able to plant an entirely imaginary conversation between himself and Sirius in Harry's mind. It *is* therefore possible to convey words that have never been spoken via legilimency. Pippin From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Sep 25 18:51:58 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 18:51:58 -0000 Subject: Straightforward readings? (was Re: Truth vs. what meets Harry's eye ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140725 Alla wrote: > > MY straightforward reading for Snape is that he DID something > wrong. ( You know, helping Harry to become an oprphan, bullying the > children, killing Dumbldore to me count as wrong). That is why I would > feel good when he is caught and punished. Potioncat: Snape overheard the prophesy while he was a DE and reported it to LV. At the time he heard the prophesy he would not have known who it referred to. And if he's as dense as me, he would not realize it was an unborn child. (OK, granted, Snape is smarter than me.) Before LV took action upon "the one who approaches" Snape informed DD. Snape changed sides and began working against LV. DD apparantly does/did not think punishment was required or perhaps placed acts of reparations upon Snape. (Is that what I'm trying to say?) So I think if we said to DD, "Don't you remember, Headmaster, Snape is responsible for James's and Lily's deaths?" DD would answer to us, "My memory is as good as ever." > Carol responds: snip (good points, by the way) > As for bullying children, Snape's sarcasm is mild compared with the > physical harm that other characters have inflicted on Harry (the > Dursleys locking him in his room with bars on the window and only cold > soup to eat, Voldemort and Crouch!Moody Crucioing him and trying to > kill him, Umbridge trying to Crucio him and making him write lines in > his own blood). Potioncat: The biggest eye-opener for me is the incredible damage Harry does to Draco. I cannot get around the horrible injury he inflicted. I keep forgetting that Snape was able to cure Draco to the point that he could walk out. But more amazing is that the punishment was merely several Saturdays of detention. The WW has a very different mind-set. > > Carol, not quite resisting the temptation to state once more that > there's more to Snape than meets the eye, as we will surely discover > in Book 7 Potioncat: Given that what does meet the eye is not much to look at, let's hope so. But I will say, that my straigtforward read had Snape as the good-guy all the way through HBP. It was the AK on the Tower that shocked me. But my reading of everything, without doing gymnastics is still that Snape is DDM! OK, so no surprise there. From bibphile at yahoo.com Sun Sep 25 19:30:41 2005 From: bibphile at yahoo.com (bibphile) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 19:30:41 -0000 Subject: Mindset in the Wizarding World (was:Straightforward readings? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140726 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Potioncat: > The biggest eye-opener for me is the incredible damage Harry does to > Draco. I cannot get around the horrible injury he inflicted. I keep > forgetting that Snape was able to cure Draco to the point that he > could walk out. But more amazing is that the punishment was merely > several Saturdays of detention. > > The WW has a very different mind-set. I don't think that was the most extreme example. If I recall, Draco tried to use Crucio on Harry. What Harry did was self defense. I think what James and Sirius did in the pensieve scene was worthy of expulsion. If they got caught (and I admit that we don't know if they did) then they certainly weren't expelled. And I think Sirius should have been brought up on criminal chages for sending Snape to a transformed werewolf but he wasn't even expelled. He might not have even been punished severely. Afterall if they'd taken 500 points from Gryffindor then the other students would ask why and there would be a risk of Lupin's secret getting out. (Of course, we don't know how strong the punishment was; it may have been like Harry's.) This may reflect Dumbledore's mindset more than the Wizarding mindset though. After all, when Molly and Aurthur were in school the punishment for being out opast curfew left scars. Maybe Dumbledore doesn't think punishement is the best way to make someone change his or her behavior. 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. He could have at least looked for Latin roots or tried them on mice first. What would have happened if he'd tried that spell on McLaggen like he planned? bibphile From anurim at yahoo.com Sun Sep 25 17:07:13 2005 From: anurim at yahoo.com (Mira) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 10:07:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Straightforward readings? /TW cup In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050925170713.44252.qmail@web32605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140727 --- lupinlore wrote: > Of course there is also the fact that, having > managed to fool Albus, > Barty proceeded forward with a standard comic-book > villain's "ridiculously complex, needlessly > dramatic, self- > destructively intricate" plot. He could have > created a port-key out > of a book, slipped it into Harry's hand some quiet > evening, and then > said "No Albus, I've not seen the boy. Are you sure > you've checked > everywhere? Everybody's been watching the > tournament, you know." > Instead, he launches a bizarre and inexplicable plot > that manages to > put the boy he wants to kidnap constantly in the > public eye -- and > constantly in danger of being killed or injured, to > boot. This part can be explained if we postulate that nobody but the headmaster can set up portkeys in the Hogwarts grounds. Now, it would have made sense for Dumbledore to transform the cup into a portkey that should have taken the champion out of the maze instantly. Perhaps a very accomplished wizard cannot override the interdiction to define portkeys, but once one has been made, he can actually change its destination. Of course, we don't know anything about this rule yet, but to me it would make sense if it was true. Mira __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Sep 25 21:22:57 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 21:22:57 -0000 Subject: Straightforward readings?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140728 potioncat" wrote: > The biggest eye-opener for me is the > incredible damage Harry does to > Draco. I cannot get around the horrible > injury he inflicted. I keep forgetting > that Snape was able to cure Draco to > the point that he could walk out. But > more amazing is that the punishment was > merely several Saturdays of detention. I don't think Harry should have been punished at all, he was just defending himself from an unprovoked attack from somebody about to use an Unforgivable curse. He would have been justified in killing him to prevent that. Eggplant From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 25 21:30:29 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 21:30:29 -0000 Subject: The Powerful Slytherin (Re: Snape/Harry coincidence?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140729 > >>houyhnhnm: > Prior to Harry's remark there is a lot of familiar language leading > the reader to expect the same old same old. Snape speaks "curtly", > "dismissively". His gaze lingers on Harry "maliciously". Harry > reflects "bitterly". He maintains a silent snarky running commentary > on everything Snape says. Snape looks "just as much like an > overgrown bat as ever". Harry waits "on tenterhooks". He > replies "stiffly". > Then out of the blue "The words escaped him before he knew what he > was saying ... 'There's no need to call me 'sir', Professor.'" > It still strikes me that a code shift has taken place. Maybe > Harry's words cannot be considered fully mature, but it seems to me > they do represent an advance over the childish defensive stew he > was in just moments before. It is certainly a more *Snape-like* > response. Betsy Hp: Ah, I see what you're saying here. Harry wasn't being defensive (as he's always been with Snape, IIRC), so there *is* a shift of behavior. I still think Harry was being childish, but it was a much more...familiar form of childishness, I guess. At this point I think Harry sees himself as "over Snape". A continuation of his familiarity from the end of OotP perhaps? (His "Deciding what curse to use on Draco" remark.) This might actually explain why we see so little of Snape's DADA class. Harry is rather good at it and so he wouldn't be as easily embarrassed into trying as he was in potions. And if he's as dismissive of Snape as this exchange suggests, I doubt Harry paid all that much attention in class. More than likely we would have been treated to endless monologues of Harry wondering about Draco. Maybe some intense study of Draco's deteriorating appearence (I believe they shared this class). Every once in a while there'd be an eye- rolling dismissal of Snape's lesson that day, but probably very little interaction between the two. And, interestingly enough, Harry doesn't pick up any new DADA tricks this year. In his battles he uses the same old, same old (including his beloved Crucio - is no one going to talk to him about that? Other than Snape I mean). Oh! But he *does* use new spells he learned from the half-blood Prince. Interesting.... Because I do think Harry shot himself in the foot with his dismissal of Snape. That's where I see the childishness slipping in. It's foolish to mock someone you can learn from. And Harry obviously needs to learn how to do nonverbal spells. We also know that Snape is Billy Bad-ass when it comes to dueling. Harry could have done well to try and learn from him. But I think Harry feels such a contempt for Snape now (side affect of the familiarity), he doesn't recognize Snape has anything of value to teach him. > >>houyhnhnm: > It doesn't lead to any improvement between them, unfortunately. As > Jen said, the eavesdropper reveal (and the events on the tower) put > the kibosh on any progress Harry could have been making toward a > better relationship with HBP/Snape. (And I agree that the language > used in Snape's response to Harry in the classroom that day is > probably due to a change in Harry's point of view rather than a > change in Snape's behavior.) Betsy Hp: No, it doesn't. Actually, I think it leads Harry to be far too dismissive of Snape. If Snape actually *is* ESE! he'll find Harry an incredibly easy target. If Snape is DDM! than Harry will be hard- pressed to accept his help. Either way Harry will need to further assess his take on Snape. (I wonder how Snape took the new view Harry has of him? He doesn't seem to act any differently himself, but he must have picked up on Harry's new attitude.) > >>Jen: > > Lily must be the remaining person who has something very > > important to teach Harry. I'm tending toward her over Snape now, > > because of what you said here. The outcome will relate to Snape, > > but perhaps the learning part won't. > >>Saraquel: > I've been thinking for some while now that *both* Snape and Lily are > essential for Harry to learn how to defeat Voldemort. > Betsy Hp: I think you may be right, Saraquel. While I'm reluctant to guess exactly *how* they're both going to help Harry (I did like your idea of forgiveness, though) I have a feeling that their story is intertwined somehow. We have what appears to be two separate story threads going into book 7: Snape's true loyalties (Voldemort, Dumbledore, himself?), and Lily's past (the power she used to protect Harry, her school-days, etc.). I think it'd make sense to combine those threads somehow. And I think there've been a few hints dropped that suggest there is a link between Snape and Lily. I have a sneaking suspicion that learning more about Lily will somehow force Harry to reassess his views on Snape. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 25 22:53:58 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 22:53:58 -0000 Subject: Straightforward readings? /Harry needs to get over Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140731 > Carol responds: > To me, the straightforward reading is that Snape regretted having told > Voldemort the Prophecy, *returned* to "our side" and began spying for > Dumbledore "at great personal risk" (GoF) at least several months > before Voldemort's fall since he began teaching Potions two months > before Godric's Hollow, Alla: Hmmm, are we always believing what Snape says then? Because if we do then THIS is also straight from the books. "You ask where I was when the Dark Lord fell. I was where he ordered me to be , at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, because he wished me to spy upon Albus Dumbledore. You know, I presume that it was on Dark Lord's Orders that I took upon the post?' - HBP, p.26 Carol: attempted to tell James that Sirius was a spy > but was "arrogantly" rebuffed (PoA--the fact that he was wrong about > *who* the spy was is immaterial here), Alla: Do we know that for a FACT? I am very curious now. I remember Snape raving to Harry that he is just as arrogant as his father, because he did not listen to him, but I don't remember the canon for Snape flat out saying that he warned James about who spy was? Could you refer me to relevant quote, please? Carol: and expressed remorse when the > Potters died (HBP). Alla: Yep, " And you overlook Dumbledore's greatest weakness; He has to believe the best of people. I spun him a tale of deepest remorse when I joined his staff, fresh from my Death Eater days, and he embraced me with open arms - though, as I say, never allowing me nearer the Dark Arts than he could help" - HBP, p.31. You know, dear Severus is pretty convincing to me , explaining away all his good deeds. Carol: Moreover, actions in > the HP books have unintended consequences--Snape's revelation of the > Prophecy does lead (despite his remorse) to Harry's becoming an > orphan, but it also leads to Voldemort's vaporization, giving the WW a > respite from Voldemort for nearly fourteen years (from GH to the > restoration of LV's body at the end of GoF). Not that Snape deserves > credit, only that if it weren't for his action, LV1 would not have ended. Alla: Indeed, actions in Potterverse DO have unexpected consequences, as Dumbledore tells Harry in PoA that Peter;s life debt may come in handy ( paraphrase). I am just not sure how it excuses Snape. Carol: > As for bullying children, Snape's sarcasm is mild compared with the > physical harm that other characters have inflicted on Harry (the > Dursleys locking him in his room with bars on the window and only cold > soup to eat, Voldemort and Crouch!Moody Crucioing him and trying to > kill him, Umbridge trying to Crucio him and making him write lines in > his own blood). As JKR and Dumbledore seem to think, kids need to > learn to deal with sarcasm and dislike on the part of their superiors, > and (IMO) Harry needs to just get over it. Alla: Oh, I don't know about mild sarcasm, if when Harry goes to occlumency lessons he is afraid to be alone with Snape. If Harry just needs to get over it, would you agree that Snape also needs to get over what James and Sirius did to him , like LONG time ago, especially considering the fact that both of those mena are dead now? And JKR does not seem to think that kids need to learn how to deal with bullying, IMo. She said that Dumbledore keeps Snape for life lessons. What kind of lessons they are is widely open to interpretation, IMO. Not be like Snape, maybe? Now, if you are to tell me that Harry needs to forgive Snape and move on, I have to agree reluctantly, but I absolutely disagree that Harry needs to get over him. Since I am pretty convinced that Harry WILL forgive Snape, I keep hoping that Harry will be allowed to let on as much steam about Snape, as he desires. Because contrary to Sirius Black, Snape KNEW (IMO) that telling prophecy to Voldie would bring death on some unknown couple. If their names were Potters, that to me makes Snape complcit and intentionally complicit at that. Carol: > Snape not only saved Harry from Quirrell's curse in SS/PS (Hermione's > interference notwithstanding) and later refereed a Quidditch game to > keep it from happening again, Alla: Yep, and that is the only unquestionably GOOD action which I can credit Snape with towards Harry. But even this one he manages to explain away nicely, no? Carol: he tried to save HRH from a werewolf and > a man he believed to be a murderer in PoA (he conjured stretchers and > brought them all to safety after he regained consciousness), Alla: OR he went to get his revenge on Sirius and Lupin and in between decided that revenge is best served the legal way. Of course it won't do for him to keep kids dead. Have you noticed how he keeps then from telling the truth about Peter? Confunded.... Right. :-0 Carol: If he had not sent > the Order to the MoM, Harry and all his friends would be dead. Alla: I think Neri argues about it much better than I am. Carol: Surely > all of this makes up for insensitive remarks about Hermione's teeth or > using Trevor (whom he knew would not be poisoned) to test Neville's > antidote or giving Harry zeroes for spilled potion. Or if it doesn't, > it's the reader's personal feelings and educational philosophy (one to > which Snape himself has never been exposed), not the text itself, that > shapes a desire for punishment. Alla: No, actually, it does not make up for his everyday bullying at all, IMO. Especially in light that ALL of the actions you cited could be easily committed OFH!Snape ( and again he manages to explain them away REALLY well in Spinners' end, does not he?) Carol: And of course controlling his > hatred and not using Dark magic is essential to his victory over LV, > but Harry doesn't want to hear it because it comes from Snape.) Alla: Hatred - YES, controlling emotions - I am ready to bet that - NO, contrary to what Snape thinks and says. "It is your heart that saved you", no? So, I don't think that any of Snape advice, if it WAS advice would come handy for Harry. JMO of course, Alla. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 25 23:24:40 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 23:24:40 -0000 Subject: Straightforward readings? (was Re: Truth vs. what meets Harry's eye ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140732 Pippin: > Now, Snape, being a fictional construct, has never picked on > any real children, so I suppose that to engender such a desire he > must represent real people who pick on children, in the same way > that Harry, to Snape, represented the people who bullied him. > > In Snape's case, this old prejudice led him to place too much reliance > on superficial evidence and biased witnesses, including himself. > > Whether readers are making the same mistake is for them to consider. Alla: So, the readers who are arguing about Snape being evil or out for himself are exposing some kind of prejudice and make the same mistake as Harry does? I think this is a weak argument, personally. The difference between what Snape does to Harry and what I as reader do ( I am very uncomfortable to speak for anyone else but myself) when I interpret ... say events on the Tower is that it is still to be PROVEN as FACT that reader has superficial evidence and biased witnesses when deciding that Snape is guilty. While it had been proven as fact that Harry is not James in a sense Snape thinks he is, IMO. > Potioncat: > Snape overheard the prophesy while he was a DE and reported it to LV. > At the time he heard the prophesy he would not have known who it > referred to. And if he's as dense as me, he would not realize it was > an unborn child. (OK, granted, Snape is smarter than me.) Alla: LOL! I am sure he is more dense than you are. :-) But from the part of the prophecy Snape heard it is clear IMO that it talks about the child. As I said above - Snape delivered to death unnamed couple, whoever those people would turn out to be - then Snape would be complicit in their deaths. Well, their names were Potters. Potioncat: > Before LV took action upon "the one who approaches" Snape informed > DD. Snape changed sides and began working against LV. DD apparantly > does/did not think punishment was required or perhaps placed acts of > reparations upon Snape. (Is that what I'm trying to say?) > > So I think if we said to DD, "Don't you remember, Headmaster, Snape > is responsible for James's and Lily's deaths?" DD would answer to > us, "My memory is as good as ever." Alla: Don't get me wrong, if I knew that Snape was truly remorseful for that, I would be fine with it, but firstly I don't know that for sure and secondly IMO that is SO not up to Dumbledore to decide whether to grant Snape absolution or not. I mean I understand for story line constraints Dumbledore giving Draco absolution for the attempted murder of Ron and Kathy ( even though I also don't like it) But when Harry comes to Dumbledore full of righteous anger for what Snape did to his parents and Dumbledore casually dismisses him as Harry has no right to be upset, that was my only "let's slap Dumbledore" moment in HBP. Which is quite an improvement since I had plenty of those in OOP. :-) Just my opinion of course, Alla From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Sun Sep 25 23:26:39 2005 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 00:26:39 +0100 Subject: Bullying was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: <003101c5bf86$f1e92b00$bc21f204@pensive> References: <003101c5bf86$f1e92b00$bc21f204@pensive> Message-ID: <4337322F.4010107@btopenworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140733 Sherry Gomes wrote: > And on the subject of James being a bully, this question just occurred to > me, though I don't know why it occurred just now. How is it that people who > defend Snape so vigorously can refuse to admit his terrible bullying of > children for years, even giving him the excuse of toughening up the kids, > and yet, they can dismiss James as a bully based on one scene from Snape's > memory? You've got me thinking - why I'm much more appalled by James&Sirius flashback in OoTP than by all the things Snape did as a teacher. I believe I know an answer. In the UK, when a child or a teenager commit suicide, it's a rare enough event to reach the front pages. These poor children often leave suicide notes, which are published as well, more often than not. I'd guess I've seen about 30 or 40 such notes. A minority of them mention unrequited love. The rest mention bullying by one's schoolmates. 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". Do you see what I mean? Snape, as horrible as he is to Harry and Neville (and I leave arguing about ABUSE vs. "abuse" to another day), does not really have as much influence over their lives as people imagine. Really, they have Potions 2 hours a week. As soon as they are out of his classroom, that's it. Classmates, on the other hand, can turn one's live into a 24/7 living hell. Irene From nrenka at yahoo.com Mon Sep 26 00:01:28 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 00:01:28 -0000 Subject: Bullying was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: <4337322F.4010107@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140734 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, IreneMikhlin wrote: > Do you see what I mean? Snape, as horrible as he is to Harry and > Neville (and I leave arguing about ABUSE vs. "abuse" to another day), > does not really have as much influence over their lives as people > imagine. Really, they have Potions 2 hours a week. As soon as they > are out of his classroom, that's it. Classmates, on the other hand, > can turn one's live into a 24/7 living hell. The differences are noted--but 24/7, given the House system? I'm just thinking, off the top of my head, just how *little* contact Harry and the people he observes have with people in other Houses, especially those who they really don't like. House Common Rooms are a definite refuge from anyone outside the House; this is a case of animosity between students from different Houses, not a case of an internal dynamic. So there's the other open periods, and that's where we have little enough information that it's tough to establish a pattern. Was the free time outside post-OWLs exceptional? Regular animosity in the hallways, classrooms? I dunno. I admit that I incline to the opposite position; bullying and abuse between students can be very strong and have unpleasant results, but it is between people on a reasonable plane of equality. But the use of an institutional position of authority to strike down upon inferiors who have no ability of response--that speaks to a greater degree of deliberation, and it degrades the value of the office as well. There certainly are cases of students suffering severe damage at the hands of institutional superiors, as well as being bullied by their peers. But if we take the no harm no foul standard--not that I'm saying it was invoked earlier in this post, but it certainly HAS been in the past with Snape's actions towards the kids--nobody ended up seriously hurt, nobody got expelled (and don't we trust in Dumbledore to Do The Right Thing?) and it's still speculation that there was deep permanent psychological damage to the offended party, in this case. To clarify a bit, the agency issue is very opaque here, and we're all speculating. -Nora prefers to hew to Faith and wait for some answers From kjones at telus.net Mon Sep 26 00:13:41 2005 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 17:13:41 -0700 Subject: Bullying was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: <4337322F.4010107@btopenworld.com> References: <003101c5bf86$f1e92b00$bc21f204@pensive> <4337322F.4010107@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: <43373D35.3090609@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 140735 IreneMikhlin wrote: > 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". > > Do you see what I mean? Snape, as horrible as he is to Harry and Neville > (and I leave arguing about ABUSE vs. "abuse" to another day), does not > really have as much influence over their lives as people imagine. > Really, they have Potions 2 hours a week. As soon as they are out of his > classroom, that's it. Classmates, on the other hand, can turn one's live > into a 24/7 living hell. > Irene KJ writes: This is a very good point. All of Harry's angsty moments are from being left out of the loop, being treated poorly by Ron, being caught in the middle of arguments between Ron & Hermione, and all of the students being fearful of him or not believing him. He handled his anger and "hatred" of Snape very well at the end of OotP. He obviously does not fear Snape in HBP. He is rude, disrespectful, and suspicious, but did not fear Snape even at the end after the death of DD. All through the books, there is a sense of dislike and distrust, but not outright fear of Snape. While people might argue that since Snape and the students all live in the castle, Snape would have access to them if he wished to terrorize them further. It would equate to more than 2 hours a week that he would be able to have an effect on them. This does not seem to be an issue other than detentions. I seem to recall that Umbridge gave Harry more detentions than Snape did in four books. It is also only the Trio and Neville who Snape treats this way. I think that this treatment of Harry Neville, Ron and Hermione had a purpose, was deliberate, that Dumbledore was fully aware of it and allowed it out of necessity. Part of the reason Harry hates Snape is because he is treated differently from the other students. Kids don't notice as much or take it personally if all the students are treated poorly. The worst teacher I had as a child gave me migraine headaches, but it never even crossed my mind that they were caused by her constant demands. I just didn't like her. KJ From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 26 00:35:26 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 00:35:26 -0000 Subject: Straightforward readings? /Harry needs to get over Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140736 Carol earlier: > > To me, the straightforward reading is that Snape regretted having > told Voldemort the Prophecy, *returned* to "our side" and began spying for Dumbledore "at great personal risk" (GoF) at least several months before Voldemort's fall since he began teaching Potions two months before Godric's Hollow, > Alla responded: > > Hmmm, are we always believing what Snape says then? Because if we do > then THIS is also straight from the books. > > "You ask where I was when the Dark Lord fell. I was where he > ordered me to be , at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, > because he wished me to spy upon Albus Dumbledore. You know, I > presume that it was on Dark Lord's Orders that I took upon the > post?' - HBP, p.26 Carol again: The words in GoF are Dumbledore's, not Snape's. There's no reason not to believe them that I can see. And Snape's words in HBP are to Bellatrix, whom he has to convince of his loyalty to Voldemort. Earlier (in OoP) he speaks of being able to conceal a lie from Voldemort. If he can do that, he can easily conceal the same lies from Bellatrix. > > Carol earlier: > > [Snape] attempted to tell James that Sirius was a spy but was "arrogantly" rebuffed (PoA--the fact that he was wrong about *who* the spy was is immaterial here), > > Alla: > Do we know that for a FACT? I am very curious now. I remember Snape > raving to Harry that he is just as arrogant as his father, because > he did not listen to him, but I don't remember the canon for Snape > flat out saying that he warned James about who spy was? Could you > refer me to relevant quote, please? Carol: It's in PoA: "Like father, like son, Potter! I have just saved your neck, and you should be thanking me on bended knee! You'd have died like your father, too arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black" (Am. ed. 361). I take that to mean that Snape tried to convince James that Sirius was a spy or traitor and was scornfully ignored (and now, of course, he thinks Black is a murderer). I could be wrong in that interpretation. But we still have his *return* to Dumbledore, first spying and then teaching, before Godric's Hollow. > Carol earlier: > [Snape] expressed remorse when the Potters died (HBP). > > Alla: > Yep, " And you overlook Dumbledore's greatest weakness; He has to believe the best of people. I spun him a tale of deepest remorse when I joined his staff, fresh from my Death Eater days, and he embraced me with open arms - though, as I say, never allowing me nearer the Dark Arts than he could help" - HBP, p.31. > > You know, dear Severus is pretty convincing to me , explaining away all his good deeds. Carol responds: Again, you have Snape speaking to Bellatrix spinning a tale to *her*. There's no reason for the reader to assume that it's true, given his double agent role, but it's very important that *Bellatrix* believe it. > > Alla: > > Indeed, actions in Potterverse DO have unexpected consequences, as Dumbledore tells Harry in PoA that Peter;s life debt may come in handy ( paraphrase). I am just not sure how it excuses Snape. Carol responds: I didn't say that it did, only that his actions (and Voldemort's) had a very important consequence that they didn't intend. If Snape hadn't told Voldemort about the Prophecy, there would be no Chosen One to destroy Voldemort. (No credit to Snape, as I said before, but Godric's Hollow is a felix culpa, a fortunate fault--good coming out of evil.) But Snape, unlike Voldemort (and Peter Pettigrew, whose role more clearly parallels his), may have sincerely repented. Dumbledore believes he did, and I trust Dumbledore's judgment over Snape's words to Bellatrix (lying is part of his job and necessary to his safety) or Draco's judgment of either man (one loyal to Voldemort and the other a "stupid old man"). > > Alla: > Oh, I don't know about mild sarcasm, if when Harry goes to occlumency lessons he is afraid to be alone with Snape. Carol responds: But the fear isn't justified, is it? Snape takes out his wand, but he uses it to take thoughts from his own head and then to cast a Legilimency spell--after warning Harry that it's coming and telling him to defend himself in any way he can. As for Snape's rage after the Pensieve scene, all he does is push Harry away and explode a jar of cockroaches (which Harry after the fact thinks that Snape threw). Snape could have turned him into a bouncing ferret or used any number of spells on him, but he just orders him out--pretty much what an irate Muggle would do. Other than that incident, Snape is remarkably calm and even praises Harry. Again, the fear is unjustified. Nor has snape ever harmed Harry during any of his various detentions. > Alla: > If Harry just needs to get over it, would you agree that Snape also needs to get over what James and Sirius did to him , like LONG time ago, especially considering the fact that both of those mena are dead now? Carol responds: Yes, of course. The problem is, he doesn't seem to know how, and Harry's continual disregard for the rules reminds him of James, making matters worse. > Alla: > And JKR does not seem to think that kids need to learn how to deal > with bullying, IMo. > She said that Dumbledore keeps Snape for life lessons. What kind of > lessons they are is widely open to interpretation, IMO. > > Not be like Snape, maybe? Carol: I think we're thinking of the same quote, in which she says that "horrible teachers" are one of the lessons DD wants the students to learn. I think that coping with bullying is one of those lessons (especially as preparation for dealing with the geatest bully of all, Voldemort). Pampering the kids and making them believe that they're special (modern Muggle education) would be much less helpful, IMO, especially in Harry's case. But not being like Snape could be another lesson that DD wants them to learn. If so, Harry's on the wrong path, with his desire for revenge and his repeated attempts to cast a Crucio. If he's not going to become Snape, he'd better take Snape's advice and stay away from the Dark Arts. > > Alla: > Now, if you are to tell me that Harry needs to forgive Snape and move on, I have to agree reluctantly, but I absolutely disagree that Harry needs to get over him. Since I am pretty convinced that Harry WILL forgive Snape, I keep hoping that Harry will be allowed to let > on as much steam about Snape, as he desires. Carol: I don't see the difference between "moving on" and "getting over him," but I certainly believe that he needs to forgive Snape. > Alla: > Because contrary to Sirius Black, Snape KNEW (IMO) that telling prophecy to Voldie would bring death on some unknown couple. If their names were Potters, that to me makes Snape complcit and intentionally complicit at that. Carol: I understand why you would think that, but the Prophecy is probably clearer to us than it was to young Snape. He heard part of a Prophecy, delivered in an uncanny voice, and probably ran off to report to his then master what he had heard. Only when he saw how Voldemort interpreted it--as an immediate threat--and realized that he intended to identify and attack an as yet unborn infant would Snape have started to regret his actions. And when Voldemort discovered the identity of one or both Prophecy boys and began attacking their parents (which is how I interpret "defied Voldemort three times), Snape went to Dumbledore, confessed what he had done, and asked for help. At that point, he became a spy "at great personal risk," which he surely would not have done had he not been genuinely repentant. But the full measure of remorse was yet to come, when he had (IMO) done everything in his power to prevent the Potters' deaths and failed. (And he would have hated James for dying without allowing him to repay the life debt, complicating his emotions still further.) > > Carol earlier: > > Snape not only saved Harry from Quirrell's curse in SS/PS (Hermione's interference notwithstanding) and later refereed a Quidditch game to keep it from happening again, > > Alla: > > Yep, and that is the only unqutionably GOOD action which I can credit Snape with towards Harry. But even this one he manages to explain away nicely, no? Carol: Yes, that's the point. He explains his good actions away in a way that will make them acceptable to Bellatrix (and, earlier, to LV). But that doesn't mean he's telling her the full or true story. I don't believe him when he says that he didn't think Voldemort would return or that he didn't know that Quirrell was working for Voldemort ("Where your loyalties lie" makes no sense unless it means Dumbledore or Voldemort). Being a Legilimens, he may even have known that LV was inside Quirrell's head. But he's not going to say that to Bellatrix, is he? > > > > Carol: > > he tried to save HRH from a werewolf and a man he believed to be a murderer in PoA (he conjured stretchers and > > brought them all to safety after he regained consciousness), > > Alla: > > OR he went to get his revenge on Sirius and Lupin and in between decided that revenge is best served the legal way. Of course it won't do for him to keep kids dead. Have you noticed how he keeps then from telling the truth about Peter? Confunded.... Right. :-0 Carol: The "confunded" lie keeps them from being expelled. And he doesn't know the truth about Peter. He overhears only part of the conversation between Lupin and HRH, the part about Lupin being a werewolf helped by his animagus friends at school, but he doesn't see Scabbers turned into Wormtail. Scabbers is long gone when he wakes up and transports all the others to the school on conjured stretchers. Which is not to say that he didn't want revenge on Sirius for (in his view) attempting to murder him. > > Carol: > If he had not sent the Order to the MoM, Harry and all his friends would be dead. > > Alla: > I think Neri argues about it much better than I am. Carol: Yes, I know Neri's arguments about the time frame. But they're not canon, and Snape sending the Order members and telling Sirius to stay behind is. I repeat, if he hadn't sent them, Harry and his friends would be dead. That is the straightforward reading. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 26 01:09:14 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 01:09:14 -0000 Subject: Straightforward readings?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140737 Eggplant wrote: > I don't think Harry should have been punished at all, he was just defending himself from an unprovoked attack from somebody about to use an Unforgivable curse. He would have been justified in killing him to prevent that. Carol responds: "One ill turn deserves another," as Saruman would say? And Harry is justified in killing someone who's trying to use a curse that he himself has tried to cast (on Bellatrix in the MoM)? Crucio may hurt, but it isn't fatal, a Harry knows perfectly well. I think Harry was wrong to cast a curse that had been labelled "for enemies" without knowing what it did, and right to be mortified by his own action. However much he hates Draco, he doesn't want to kill him, even knowing that Draco is planning to kill Dumbledore. If he did want to kill him, and succeed in doing so, how would he be any better than Draco? Harry accepts his punishment in this instance because he knows that for once it's wholly deserved. Carol From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 26 01:21:00 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 01:21:00 -0000 Subject: Straightforward readings? /Bullying. ( LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140738 > Carol again: > The words in GoF are Dumbledore's, not Snape's. There's no reason not > to believe them that I can see. And Snape's words in HBP are to > Bellatrix, whom he has to convince of his loyalty to Voldemort. > Earlier (in OoP) he speaks of being able to conceal a lie from > Voldemort. If he can do that, he can easily conceal the same lies from > Bellatrix. Alla: And if he can conceal a lie from Voldemort,surely he can conceal a lie from Dumbledore? Snape's words to Bella could be considered as "convincing her" or as Snape finally revealing his true loyalties, IMO. > > Alla: > > Oh, I don't know about mild sarcasm, if when Harry goes to > occlumency lessons he is afraid to be alone with Snape. > > Carol responds: > But the fear isn't justified, is it? Snape takes out his wand, but he > uses it to take thoughts from his own head and then to cast a > Legilimency spell--after warning Harry that it's coming and telling > him to defend himself in any way he can. Again, the fear is unjustified. Nor has > snape ever harmed Harry during any of his various detentions. Alla: It does not matter to me whether Harry's fear was unjustified, actually. The fact is that what Snape did to Harry during those five years inflicted this kind of damage to Harry - namely made him afraid of Snape,even if it does not come to the surface as strongly as it comes for Neville. I also think that Snape's cultivating Harry's hatred, fear and mistrust of him lead to Occlumency catastrophy. It made very difficult, basically impossible for Harry to overcome it and trust Snape. So, yes I think that the damage, which caused everyday "petty evils" ( thank you, Nora) could be very harmful. > Carol: > I think we're thinking of the same quote, in which she says that > "horrible teachers" are one of the lessons DD wants the students to > learn. Alla: Yes, probably. Carol: I think that coping with bullying is one of those lessons > (especially as preparation for dealing with the geatest bully of all, > Voldemort). Pampering the kids and making them believe that they're > special (modern Muggle education) would be much less helpful, IMO, > especially in Harry's case. Alla: I sincerely doubt that Dumbledore wanted kids to learn that it is OK to be constantly degrated by their teacher. I see no help in that whatsoever and I don't think that this is is the kind of lesson Dumbledore had in mind. But that is just me of course. Carol: But not being like Snape could be another > lesson that DD wants them to learn. If so, Harry's on the wrong path, > with his desire for revenge and his repeated attempts to cast a > Crucio. Alla: Absolutely. Carol: If he's not going to become Snape, he'd better take Snape's > advice and stay away from the Dark Arts. Alla: I would say that if Harry is not going to become Snape, he needs to learn to trust his heart, his better instincts and not shut down his emotions. Irene: >> Do you see what I mean? Snape, as horrible as he is to Harry and Neville > (and I leave arguing about ABUSE vs. "abuse" to another day), does not > really have as much influence over their lives as people imagine. > Really, they have Potions 2 hours a week. As soon as they are out of his > classroom, that's it. Alla: Well, Snape obviously had enough influence over their lives to become Neville's biggest fear, no? Snape obviously gave enough grief during five years to Harry who is so much stronger in resisting him than Neville and STILL is scared to go to Occlumency lessons with him. Nora: > But if we take the no harm no foul standard--not that I'm saying it was > invoked earlier in this post, but it certainly HAS been in the past > with Snape's actions towards the kids--nobody ended up seriously hurt, > nobody got expelled (and don't we trust in Dumbledore to Do The Right > Thing?) and it's still speculation that there was deep permanent > psychological damage to the offended party, in this case. To clarify a > bit, the agency issue is very opaque here, and we're all speculating. > > -Nora prefers to hew to Faith and wait for some answers Alla: As you know I disagree with " no harm, no foul standard" for bullying. I think that psychological damage could be horrendous and so often much worse than physical one. But let's for a second apply it to Pensieve scene. Isn't it interesting that the only one who ends up with PHYSICAL damage in the pensieve scene, no matter how small it is is James, who is definitely looking as an agressor? ( I still believe that we don't know a lot about their relationship and that Pensieve scene is only ONE scene in seven year run, but let's put it aside for the sake of argument) So, if humiliation does not count as damage, I guess "no harm, no foul" standard also should be invoked here, no? Just me of course, Alla, who stops for the day now. From Nanagose at aol.com Mon Sep 26 01:38:52 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 01:38:52 -0000 Subject: Bullying was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140739 Nora: > The differences are noted--but 24/7, given the House system? Christina: In non-boarding schools, bullies can make a student's life a living hell, and the majority of that student's time is spent at home. I can only imagine how much worse it might be at a boarding school, even if the students in question are in different houses. Nora: > I admit that I incline to the opposite position; bullying and abuse > between students can be very strong and have unpleasant results, but > it is between people on a reasonable plane of equality. Christina: I can appreciate the basis of what you're saying (and I do think that it is wrong for Snape to abuse his position of power and stoop to insulting children), but I would argue that Snape and the Marauders weren't really on a reasonable plane of equality either. James and Sirius were the most popular students in school and had their own little gang. They were well-liked, powerful, and we know that James (at least) was also a jock. Snape, at least how he appears in the pensieve, did not have these benefits. Even Harry noticed that Snape wasn't particularly well-liked. Snape did fight back, but before he was able to do so, when it was a simple case of James and Sirius ganging up on and abusing Snape, much of the crowd showed clear support ("Several people watching laughed...Many of the surrounding watchers laughed."). After Snape tried to hex James and James flipped him upside down, "Many people in the small crowd watching cheered." As much as it bothered me that Peter found pleasure in Snape's torture, it bothered me more that it seemed to be a common sentiment. Out of the entire group of spectators, only one person stepped forward to help Snape. I refuse to believe that all the Slytherins were mysteriously absent- some had to be there, and they didn't help Snape, either (speculation on my part, though). The only person that steps forward to defend Snape is Lily, but even she nearly smiles when James flips Snape into the air. Just because people are the same age doesn't mean that they are equals. James and Sirius were much more powerful (in many different senses of the word) than Snape was. While they were not in an official authority position (as with the present-day Snape), they were certainly strong people picking on a weak one. Nora: > To clarify a > bit, the agency issue is very opaque here, and we're all > speculating. Christina: So true. And what fun speculation it is! From crypticamoeba at gmail.com Mon Sep 26 01:39:56 2005 From: crypticamoeba at gmail.com (crypticamoeba) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 01:39:56 -0000 Subject: 7 parts of V's Souls/ 7Books Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140740 What if being the maniacal type of genius she is, JKR decided way back to infuse her books throughout with this idea of 7 being a magical number (canon: HBP). Given that there are 7 divided parts to voldemorts soul (canon: HBP). What if she decided to introduce us to one part per book. They may be small and unobtrusive but there. Book 1: Book 2: Voldemort's Diary (Destroyed) Book 3: Book 4: Naghini (sp?) Book 5: Locket in #12 (theory based on canon locket in OotP and RAB being Rudolfus A Black OotP and HBP) Book 6: Marvolo's Ring Book 7: Now to make this theory work Hufflepuff's Cup must be present in book 1 or book 3 -- But not book 7 cause then it would have been introdused in book 6 Voldemort's unbodied soul could be book 1 when introduced or book 7 as it is not a horcurx but the soul itself item of GG or RR would be in book 3 or 7 concerning Hufflepuff's Cup we came up with the House Cup and Quidditch Cup both as possibilities i do not think wither are truly possible. As V intended the Diary to reside at Hogwart's (prob. the Chamber) and 2 Horcri in the same location seems unsafe and Harry/Dumbledore would have recognized it. Crypticamoeba From Nanagose at aol.com Mon Sep 26 02:46:48 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 02:46:48 -0000 Subject: Straightforward readings? /Harry needs to get over Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140741 Sorry if this is double-posted. Yahoo is being particularly evil to me today- don't know if anyone else has experienced the same. > > Carol earlier: > > [Snape] expressed remorse when the Potters died (HBP). > > > > Alla: > > Yep, " And you overlook Dumbledore's greatest weakness; He has to > believe the best of people. I spun him a tale of deepest remorse > when I joined his staff, fresh from my Death Eater days, and he > embraced me with open arms - though, as I say, never allowing me > nearer the Dark Arts than he could help" - HBP, p.31. > > > > You know, dear Severus is pretty convincing to me , explaining away > all his good deeds. Christina: So Snape is convincing when he is saying what you want to hear, but spouting rubbish when he's saying what you don't ;) Hickengruendler wrote a fantastic post about instances where Dumbledore does *not* believe the best in people. He does not rely on blind faith, and he does exercise caution when caution is called for. In dealing with Snape, a confirmed Death Eater, I would say that caution was certainly called for, and I personally believe that Dumbledore acted accordingly. Here is the URL of the post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/138061 Christina From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Sep 26 03:04:05 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 03:04:05 -0000 Subject: Straightforward readings? (was Re: Truth vs. what meets Harry's eye ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140742 > Alla: > > Don't get me wrong, if I knew that Snape was truly remorseful for > that, I would be fine with it, but firstly I don't know that for > sure and secondly IMO that is SO not up to Dumbledore to decide > whether to grant Snape absolution or not. Potioncat: If not DD, then who? Keep in mind, we're talking over a decade ago. Not sure what was going in the MoM. I doubt if the Order is a Ministry sanctioned organization. So Snape has come to the wizard who has the best chance of beating LV and offers something. Then provides a service, at great risk. As far as believing Snape or not in HBP, it depends on whose judgement you trust more: DD or Bella. DD trusts Snape. He's heard his story, he's worked with him, he knows what risks Snape has taken. DD believes Snape is loyal to DD. Bella does not trust Snape. She's heard his story and finds it lacking. She's worked with him and knows what he's gotten out of. She beleives Snape is loyal to DD. Wait a minute.... From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Sep 26 03:05:41 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 03:05:41 -0000 Subject: Straightforward readings? /Bullying. ( LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140743 > Alla: > > As you know I disagree with " no harm, no foul standard" for > bullying. I think that psychological damage could be horrendous and > so often much worse than physical one. > > But let's for a second apply it to Pensieve scene. Isn't it > interesting that the only one who ends up with PHYSICAL damage in > the pensieve scene, no matter how small it is is James, who is > definitely looking as an agressor? ( I still believe that we don't > know a lot about their relationship and that Pensieve scene is only > ONE scene in seven year run, but let's put it aside for the sake of > argument) > > So, if humiliation does not count as damage, I guess "no harm, no > foul" standard also should be invoked here, no? Actually I find it unlikely that James took the only physical damage in this fight. The Impediment Jinx tends to have fairly physical effects (in this case knocking Snape off his feet.) James uses it before Snape does Sectumsempra (my guess at the curse that causes the cut to James...) James later uses Levicorpus, and when Lily tells him to stop, just ceases holding him up, so that he falls "into a crumpled heap on the ground". As soon as Snape gets untangled from his robe and stands back up, James does a "Locomotor Mortis", ("Snape keeled over again at once"). I'd be surprised if Snape didn't pick up some bruises in this scene as a result of all this being thrown around and knocked down repeatedly. I would also guess he got dropped at least one more time than we see, since Harry, and thus we too, get yanked out of the scene just as young Snape gets Levicorpused again... --zgirnius, whose experiences with Judo suggest to her that falling, even when you know what you are doing, and are doing it on a mat, can still hurt... From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 26 03:08:55 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 03:08:55 -0000 Subject: Snape's lies to Bellatrix (Was: Straightforward readings? /Bullying. ( LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140744 Alla wrote: > > And if he can conceal a lie from Voldemort,surely he can conceal a > lie from Dumbledore? > > Snape's words to Bella could be considered as "convincing her" or as > Snape finally revealing his true loyalties, IMO. Carol responds: You snipped the part of my post where I specified two statements made by Snape to Bellatrix that I think are clearly lies, his assertion that he thought Voldemort was dead and his statement that he thought he was opposing only "unworthy Quirrell," not Voldemort. We know that he was working with Dumbledore, who believed that LV would come back. Even Hagrid though there wasn't enough human in him to die. Snape is (IMO) pretending that, like Lucius Malfoy and others that he names, he thought LV was dead (or powerless) and didn't go after him for that reason., but I think he knew the truth even if Malfoy didn't. And being a Legilimens, he probably read Quirrell quite easily and knew exactly where his loyalties lay. Snape says in OoP, ". . . those who have mastered Legilimency are able, under certain conditions, to delve into the minds of their victims and to interpret their findings correctly. The Dark Lord, for instance, *almost* always knows when someone is lying to him. Only those skilled at Occlumency are able to shut down the feelings and memories that contradict the lie, and so utter falsehood in his presence without detection" (OoP Am. ed. 531). Almost certainly this is what Snape has been doing since he returned to LV on DD's orders at the end of GoF. The "almost" (my emphasis) refers to his own case. For the most part, the first half of "Spinner's End" consists of the lies (mixed with truths and half truths) that Snape has told Voldemort. (Dumbledore's slowed reflexes appear to be another lie or half truth agreed upon by Snape and Dumbledore as DD uses the same expression himself later in the book.) Snape asks Bellatrix (rhetorically), "Do you really think that the Dark Lord has not adked me each and every one of those questions? And do you really think that had I not given satisfactory answers, I would be sitting here talking to you?" Bellatrix responds, "I know he beleives you, but. . ." and Snape responds, "You think he is mistaken? Or that I have somehow hoodwinked him? Fooled the Dark Lord, the greatest wizard, the most accomplished Legilimens the world has ever seen?" (26) Bella is trapped. She can't answer "yes" even if she still doubts him (and she does, as we see by her later words and actions) or she will incriminate herself by implying that LV isn't as great as she thinks he is. She can't admit to Snape or herself that Snape is more skilled at Occlumency tham Voldemort is at Legilimency, that Snape might actually be lying and getting away with it. But that, IMO, is exactly what he's doing. The greatest wizard in the world, as Harry states emphatically in CoS, is not Voldemort but Albus Dumbledore. And quite possibly he's also the most accomplished Legilimens as well, in which case he knows that Snape is lying to Voldemort but telling him the truth (as he did, for example, when he reported that his and Karkaroff's Dark Marks were becoming clearer--a statement we know to be true). Snape's strategy is exactly the same as the one Dumbledore used on Snape in PoA when he asks if Snape thinks that Harry and Hermione can be in two places at the same time. Knowing Harry, Snape thinks exactly that. He may even have figured out that Hermione used a Time Turner. But he can't say what he thinks in front of Fudge without looking like a fool. Given what we know about Snape, about Voldemort, and about Dumbledore, I think it's much more likely that it's Voldemort who's being lied to, especially if we closely examine Snape's words to Bellatrix, to whom he's telling the same story with a few additions (Sirius and Emmeline Vance) specifically for her benefit. "Spinner's End" doesn't give us the truth about Snape. It gives us the web of lies he has spun, in which he is himself caught at the end of the chapter, thanks to the Unbreakable Vow. Carol From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 26 04:03:25 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 04:03:25 -0000 Subject: Straightforward readings? /Dumbledore's trust in Tom Riddle and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140745 > > > Alla: > > > Yep, " And you overlook Dumbledore's greatest weakness; He has to > > believe the best of people. I spun him a tale of deepest remorse > > when I joined his staff, fresh from my Death Eater days, and he > > embraced me with open arms - though, as I say, never allowing me > > nearer the Dark Arts than he could help" - HBP, p.31. > > > > > > You know, dear Severus is pretty convincing to me , explaining > away > > all his good deeds. > > > Christina: > > So Snape is convincing when he is saying what you want to hear, but > spouting rubbish when he's saying what you don't ;) Alla: I don't believe that this is what I said, not even close, actually. :-) I was responding to Carol's argument is that the most straightforward reading is Snape, who is loyal to Dumbledore. But we learn about Snape's loyal to Dumbledore either through Dumbledore's words, or through Snape's actions which could be interpreted both ways, right? But nowhere in the books did we hear Snape HIMSELF saying that he is loyal to the Light, correct? The most we come to is Snape saying that it is his job to find out what Voldemort and DE say in OOP? Unless I forgot something in canon, of course In "Spinner's End" we hear Snape speaking himself. So, that could be of course Snape speaking to the enemy and trying to deceive her or it could be Snape finally telling us whom he truly loyal too. I was just saying that Snape words could carry more weight than Dumbledore's second hand account or not. :-) Spotsgal: > Hickengruendler wrote a fantastic post about instances where > Dumbledore does *not* believe the best in people. He does not rely on > blind faith, and he does exercise caution when caution is called for. > In dealing with Snape, a confirmed Death Eater, I would say that > caution was certainly called for, and I personally believe that > Dumbledore acted accordingly. Here is the URL of the post: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/138061 > Alla: I really love Hickengruendler's posts and I read that one. I disagree with it, because I think that in case of Tom Riddle that is EXACTLY what Dumbledore did - relied on blind faith, even if he disagrees with it. I mean, yes, Harry is asking Albus: "But you didn't really trust him, sir, didn't you? He told me ... the Riddle who come out of that diary said, " Dumbledore never seemed to like as much as other teachers did." "Let us say that I did not take it for granted that he was trustworthy," said Dumbledore." "I had ,as I have already indicated, resolved to keep a close eye on him, and so I did. I cannot pretend that I gleaned a great deal from my observations at first. ... However, he had the sense never to try and charm me as he charmed so many of my colleagues" - HBP, p.361. So far, so good, right? Dumbledore observes young Riddle at school. But let's back track a couple of paragraphs back. "He seemed polite, quiet, and thirsty for knowledge. Nearly all were most favorably impressed by him" "Didn't you tell them, sir, what he'd been like when you met him at the orphanage?" asked Harry - p.361. Basically, I interpret Harry's question as " Did you DO something about your suspicions, Sir?" What is Dumbledore's answer? "No, I did not. Though he had shown no hint of remorse, it was possible that he felt sorry for how he had behaved before and was resolved to turn over a fresh leaf. I chose to give him that chance" - p.361. If this is not a sign of blind faith, I don't know what is. What USE is it for anybody else if Dumbledore does not inform anybody that young Riddle already was quite creepy individual at eleven? Notice, Dumbledore does not even say that Riddle SHOWED remorse for how he behaved. Dumbledore says it is POSSIBLE that he showed remorse and still he decides to bring him to Hogwarts. What USE it is for anybody else if Dumbledore was not charmed by young Riddle? Everybody else was and they did not know to be wary of Tom, because Dumbledore did not tell them. Hmmm, maybe Slugghorn would have been more careful and would not admitted him to his little club. Maybe then Tom would have never learned that Horcruxes creation is a definite possibility? Maybe if Dumbledore told Slugghorn to inform his students to be careful of Tom, he would have never be able to form his little gang? I see loads of possible parallels with how Dumbledore dealt with Snape, although of course mostly speculative. Maybe Dumbledore thought that it was POSSIBLE that Snape showed remorse for what he did, but he really did not and Dumbledore still chose to give him that chance. Maybe Dumbledore should have informed at least members of OOP and tell Harry about why he trusts Snape? I think it is possible that Dumbledore either did not exercised caution with Snape, or only THOUGHT that he exercised caution as he did with Riddle,when he decided to observe both men. I think it is a huge possibility that in both instances his powers of observation sadly failed him. Just my opinion, Alla From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Mon Sep 26 03:09:36 2005 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 03:09:36 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140746 Spotsgal: > Just because people are the same age doesn't mean that they are > equals. James and Sirius were much more powerful (in many different > senses of the word) than Snape was. While they were not in an > official authority position (as with the present-day Snape), they were > certainly strong people picking on a weak one. Yet the person who defends Snape (Lily) states quite clearly to James that he, James, is as bad Snape. Snape appears to be the meter stick used to measure "badness" at Hogwarts during the time of the Marauders. How did Snape get the reputation for "badness"? Surely he must have done some bad things at Hogwarts...unless you are saying that Lily is simply a gossip and spreading slander. Perhaps people laughed at Snape because they liked seeing someone like him get a taste of his own medicine once in a while. He did after all invent the spell that was used to hoist him up. Maybe the Marauders where popular for the very reason that they could "stick it to Snape" so to speak. Everyone loves the kids who beat up the school yard bully. Quick silver From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Sep 26 04:27:54 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 04:27:54 -0000 Subject: Bullying was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: <4337322F.4010107@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140747 Irene: > 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". Do you see what I mean? Snape, as horrible as he is to > Harryand Neville (and I leave arguing about ABUSE vs. "abuse" to > anotherday), does not really have as much influence over their > lives as people imagine. Really, they have Potions 2 hours a week. > As soon asthey are out of his classroom, that's it. Classmates, on > the other hand, can turn one's live into a 24/7 living hell. Jen: Thinking about Riddle's life vs. Harry's, it occurred to me we have some canon for how JKR may view bullying in Potterverse. In Harry's case, the enemy has always been someone clearly outside himself--the Dursleys treated him with contempt and made his life miserable; Snape is a sorry git who singled him out from the start; Draco is a prat and Harry has no desire to be friends with him. None of these relationships seems to have altered Harry's view of *himself* as a worthy person. That's an incredibly important psychological skill, to be able to 'externalize the enemy'. Researchers now believe this ability is connected to the formation of optimism. OTOH, Riddle experienced abandonment, separation problems and neglect, all of which are very vague and tend to cause a person to internalize the enemy as himself. It's no surprise Riddle thought Dumbledore was a doctor come to take him away to a padded cell--he believed that the problem resided inside himself on *some level*, and directed this outward by hurting others to gain power/control over a situation he had no control over. I'm not certain the extent JKR intended the soul ripping, but it seemed like a Potterverse form of self-mutilation and a bit eerie to me. Dumbledore even refers to it as 'mutilating his soul' (Horcrux chapter). (I'm not saying any of this to excuse Riddle, the Choices theme is still at work, but when Harry talks about being dragged into the arena or walking in chin-up, well Riddle's life seemed to offer even fewer choices). Now, to apply this to the other situations, perhaps the harm comes in for those people who can't clearly see when the enemy is outside themselves. Snape clearly believed James/Sirius were totally to blame and vice-versa (unless there's more information to come, at least). Draco is similar to Harry in his feelings toward Harry & friends--total contempt. Merope is the most recent example and falls in the same category as Riddle, she internalized her father's belittling of her to the point she wasn't able to perform effective magic anymore. Neville is the most ambiguous. He expresses fear of Snape, can't do well in his class, etc. The boggart class was a fine example of learning to 'externalize the enemy' I think, and probably helped Neville overcome some of his fears, but not all of them. He was able to start showing improvement in his magical abilities, and is really able to shine when working with someone who praises him, like Harry. Still, he seemed much more internally affected by Snape's bullying than Harry. This idea won't work for everyone on this list ;), not with a hot button issue. It's an intesting framework though, and one backed up by research in Muggle circles. Jen From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Sep 26 04:37:30 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 04:37:30 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140748 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quick_silver71" wrote: > Yet the person who defends Snape (Lily) states quite clearly to > James that he, James, is as bad Snape. Snape appears to be the meter > stick used to measure "badness" at Hogwarts during the time of the > Marauders. How did Snape get the reputation for "badness"? Surely he > must have done some bad things at Hogwarts...unless you are saying > that Lily is simply a gossip and spreading slander. zgirnius: I think the precise context of Lily's statements here suggests an alternate meaning for her statement. She says this right after Snape calls her a Mudblood, and James tells him to apologize. James is trying to impress Lily as a "good guy" by making Snape take back the insult, and Lily rebuffs him. The reference could easily just refer to Snape's uiuse of the very insulting term for Muggle-born. quick silver: > Perhaps people laughed at Snape because they liked seeing someone > like him get a taste of his own medicine once in a while. He did > after all invent the spell that was used to hoist him up. Maybe the > Marauders where popular for the very reason that they could "stick > it to Snape" so to speak. Everyone loves the kids who beat up the > school yard bully. > zgirnius: Harry was very upset by seeing this memory of Snape's. So much so, that he took the chance to Floo to 12 Grimmauld Place, where he discussed this scene with Sirius and Lupin. Both of them could see how upset Harry was, yet all they could tell him was that James grew out of this sort of behavior, and he and Snape had bad feelings for each other form the start. If Snape were a habitual bully, don't you think they would have mentioned this to Harry? Harry is especially upset by what he sees as James attacking Snape for no good reason. he specifically brings this concern up for Sirius and Lupin. "nut he just attacked Snape for no good reason, just because-well, just because you said you were bored". If there were some excellent reasons for James to dislike Snape, wouldn't it have made sense to bring it up here? But no, the reasons they give boil down to, James and Sirius were young and arrogant... From juli17 at aol.com Mon Sep 26 05:44:55 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 01:44:55 EDT Subject: Is Punishment the only recompense? (was Re: Straightforward readings?) Message-ID: <1a8.3fccea8d.3068e4d7@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140749 JKR provided us with clues throughout OoP that Crouch!Moody wasn't what he seemed. I think she's providing us with clues that Snape isn't what he seems, either--and she's been doing so since Book 1. I will be very surprised if he's nothing but a villain who's been waiting for his opportunity to kill Dumbledore all these years--a mere plot device and instrument of evil. (As an aside, what has killing Dumbledore gained him other than his life and the fulfillment of the third provision of his vow? He's lost everything--mentor, job, respect, trust, freedom. If he's also suffering a personal hell of remorse, surely that's punishment enough. I, for one, don't believe in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.) Carol, not quite resisting the temptation to state once more that there's more to Snape than meets the eye, as we will surely discover in Book 7 Julie says: I agree with everything you said, Carol. No doubt Snape has done plenty of bad things, from his actions as a Death Eater, to his reliance on verbal humiliation as a teaching method. Snape may not have been sent to Azkaban, and I think he probably never will be, but formal incarceration isn't the only form of punishment. I'm sure Snape is not living the life he would have chosen, not by a long shot. He is living the life Dumbledore made for him--and yes, it saved him from Azkaban--but it's still a life dedicated to atoning for his sins by being Dumbledore's spy. Snape didn't have to pay up for awhile, but once Voldemort returned he started paying up in spades. And once he was forced to kill Dumbledore (I assume DDsMan!Snape here), whatever life he might still have had was completely shot to hell. And now he has to live with the knowledge that he killed the only man who truly believed in him, no matter if Dumbledore's death was necessary or ultimately unpreventable. That's a fair amount of punishment right there, but I also think punishment is not the only way to pay your debt to society when you've wronged others. As I said above, there is also atonement-- righting those wrongs as much as possible. By accepting whatever terms Dumbledore offered, Snape was attempting to right those wrongs, in hopes of gaining redemption. And Dumbledore is just the type to chose atonement over formal punishment any day--why let Snape waste away in Azkaban if he can help save the WW--if his remorse is genuine? (I do make the assumption that Dumbledore is right about Snape's remorse, because while I believe Dumbledore makes mistakes, I also think he has been perceptive about people when he's had the opportunity to spend time with them--Tom Riddle for instance versus GoF fake!Moody). Now, I realize that as Snape is atoning for some wrongs (his DE actions) he is committing others (his verbal abuse of certain students). But I find those wrongs to be lesser wrongs--and we get into that abuse argument here, but there are greater and lesser wrongs, and Snape's brand of verbal abuse is way down the scale compared to the Dursleys' abuse, let alone the wrongs of Umbridge, Crouch Jr, Lockhart or Pettigrew, who all murdered or attempted to murder children with no compunction or remorse. Snape may never be punished for these wrongs, but when you put it into perspective, they are fairly tame, and the fact that miserable gits find themselves ostracized and friendless may be the most fitting punishment for their "horrible" behavior anyway. So will it be enough, that Snape makes a genuine effort to atone, and is punished in the more poetic sense of justice by giving his life away to the cause of Good (and I suspect giving his life away will be factually accurate by the end of Book 7)? Or, proving to be DD'sMan, should he help Harry defeat Voldemort and somehow manage to live through it all, will his good deeds outweigh his bad, enough that he has paid his debt to WW society? I think they will. In the unlikely event Snape does survive, I think he will be allowed to go on his way--no doubt as miserable and friendless as before, and without his one real believer, Dumbledore-- but allowed to live his life, such as it has become. I suspect others disagree, even should Snape prove to be DD'sMan, that he will have paid his debt. In that case, I agree to disagree ;-) I am with Carol on this one, as I don't believe in an eye for an eye. And I like to think I'm Dumbledore's woman, through and through, on that one. Julie (who also suspects part of Snape's atonement is protecting Harry's life, with his own if necessary) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Sep 26 06:28:27 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 06:28:27 -0000 Subject: Massive Mythological Horcrux Hunt.. Really Quite Long. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140750 After some incessant teasing of the list with the notion that the story of Harry's Horcrux quest might be revealed in ancient Mythology I have finally prepared a submittable compilation of the findings. To begin with, I will confess, I am going to make some out of the box - outer space even, claims that contradict many things we think we know about the story so far. Who killed Dumbledore, who will kill Sirius, what we can expect in Book seven, whats in the forbidden forest.. are all among these. Be prepared for a lot of stuff that is just going to seem to come from nowhere. The first Myth I looked into was the twelve Labours of Heracles: As I warned I am going to make a bold (insidious even ) claim here. In Heracles first task he uses his bare hands to defeat the Nemean Lion. From this conquest he recieves the reward of the Lions impenetrable skin. This Heracles is said to have worn throughout the rest of his life. Like it or hate it, the Nemean Lion myth, draws an incredibly strong parrallel with Dumbledore's death. In the Myth of the Labours, the Hero in a sealed cave uses his bare hands to take on an invincible and greatly feared Legendary Lion. Harry in a sealed cave uses his bare hands to slowly poison the invincible and greatly feared Legendary Gryffindor, Albus Dumbledore. Heracles then carries the lion back to Eurytheses strung over his shoulders. Harry carries Dumbledore to Hogsmeade, slung over his shoulders. When Heracles returns to Eurytheses he gains the lions skin coat, an impenetrable shield, and its head, and impenetrable helmet. What legacy did Albus leave his young protege? Maybe it's the thick skin and hard head as Dumbledores Man that we see in him when he stands up to Scrimgeour and tells Macgongall she can't know the secret. So what's my bold claim?.. Snape didn't kill Dumbledore. Harry did. Snape was brave scapegoat who covered the whole thing up for them all so Voldemort would never realise that one of his Horcruxes died in that fall from the tower. It's plausible. Dumbledore does not say that he destroyed the ring Horcrux piece. He says he destroyed the ring, and that it was no longer a Horcrux. He said that his hand was a good trade for 1/7th of Voldemorts soul, but never specified whether that soul was traded live or dead. My bet, alive, and only once choice remained. Dumbledore could kill and remove the soul from him, die and set the soul free or get Harry to kill him and get it done with right in one shot. He chose to order Harry to kill him with Voldemorts poison. It was the only way to do the job properly. Snape, the poor git, is falsely accused, but hats off to him for doing something so self sacrificing for the greater good. The second Labour of Heracles is to defeat the Hydra. A many headed Snake like creature with poison breath and venom that is so deadly it kills on contact. It lives in Lerna, a watery place. The best thing about this being the second labour.. it looks to me like Book seven will get straight into the action scenes from the get go. The worst part... I have trawled the mythology of something like six nations dredging up the full story on it.. IMO, it's definitely a Horcrux, a Battle with some Death Eaters, and possibly the payment of Peter Pettigrews life debt. I have collected it under the heading of Ravenclaw Horcrux and you'll some find more about this Horcrux below under the heading Ravenclaw Horcrux. In Heracles third Labour he hunts for a year for the golden horned hind. An animal sacred to Diana, Artemis, Aphrodite.. depending on whose account you are reading. This one I think quite simply parrallels Harry's Vendetta with Snape, and will likely play out over the course of the book. I think this story is worthy of a post all its own. The Fourth Labour is the capture of the Erymanthian boar. This myth I believe will bring Harry back to Hogwarts for Christmas. The Boar, it seems to me belongs somewhere under the heading of Hufflepuff Horcrux, with the myth of Chimaera and Bellerophon, among others. You will read more of it below under the heading Hufflepuff Horcrux. The Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Labours, are consecutively the cleaning of some very smelly stables, taking on some man eating bird creatures, catching and relocating a raging giant bull, and the conquest of a herd of man eating horses. If Harry is to be like Heracles and complete these labours during his quest then I would say he *is* going to bail the MOM out of their stupidity after all. The smelly fumes of the stables that will overcome the population - Dementors Breeding. Heracles enlists the help of a local boy to divert rivers to wash the stables. I'd make a hesitant guess that this might be the return of Viktor Krum. I especially think it would be good to see them achieve something great as a team. The Stymalian Birds and the Wild Bull, I think might be two halves of the situation with the giants. In the Titan war Heracles defeats Cacus great big man eater of a giant. The Flesh eating Horses, are almost as good as given. The uprising of the malcontent Werewolves looks to fit. Fenrirs crowd, will need to be returned to their place. Heracles in some accounts employs a chariot in this labour. This could signal the return of the Flying Ford Anglia and Motorbike. There is also a younger counterpart involved in this labour, Abderos, who dies overcome by the flesh eaters when he is given the task of watching over them. Heracles named a city in the honour of his young ally. Alas tragedy may strike during Harry's encounter with Werewolves in Book seven. The ninth labour, we go back to Horcruxes again. And, I dare say, back to timeturning. We may see the death of Sirius over. Not much to like about that, except that I think we will understand this time around, why Sirius had to die. Heracles ninth Labour involves crossing the seas to reach the Amazon Queen. There he must ask her for her belt, which it appears she would willingly give. Hera interferes and Heracles realises he is under attack. His only recourse is to kill the Queen, which he does, then takes the belt and flees the Amazon Army. I am going on a hunch here, but I think Sirius' death borrows from this myth. Another straighter reading of the ninth Labour could be to consider the possibility that Harry will go to Beauxbatons. I abandoned it myself, it seemed to uncessarily close to the Greek mythology, but anyone else can speculate as they like on this. On the way back from the Amazons Heracles rescues Hesione, as it happens in HP I think that this part of the story will probably have a lot of likeness to its equal mythology in Alchemy and the Grail Quest. Percy should be involved here, I believe. The tenth Labour of Heracles involves him herding the cattle of Geryon from the ends of the earth. I believe that this Labour can be translated into the third part of the Hufflepuff Horcrux destruction so see below. The Eleventh Labour stretches across mythology, there are too many to name here that are essentially the same story. However the Basilisk in the Chamber of Secrets, seems to borrow heavily from Cadmus, another Greek Myth. Cadmus, like Heracles, used Lions hide for his armour, and he assaulted the great serpent of Thebes much like Harry's assault on the Basilisk: "Cadmus retreated before him, holding his spear opposite to the monster's opened jaws. The serpent snapped at the weapon and attempted to bite its iron point. At last Cadmus, watching his chance, thrust the spear at a moment when the animal's thrown back came against the trunk of a tree, and so succeeded in pinning him to its side. His weight bent the tree as he struggled in the agonies of death. While Cadmus stood over his conquered foe, contemplating its vast size, a voice was heard (from whence he knew not, but he heard it distinctly), commanding him to take the dragon's teeth and sow them in the earth. He obeyed. " http://www.online-mythology.com/cadmus/ The Quest for Hera's golden apples echoes Harry's defeat of the basilisk in other ways: Hercules enlists the help of Atlas to retrieve the golden apples. Atlas is a Titan who carries the weight of the world on his shoulders. Dumbledore (who has been likewise equated to Atlas in other comparisons) also has the weight of the world on his shoulders. Heracles defeats the Ladon for Atlas, and then holds the weight of the world while Atlas goes to retrieve the apples. Harry likeise defeats the Basilisk, and hands Dumbledore the Horcrux, Dumbledore then goes about uncovering the meaning of the mysterious diary, he metaphorically retrieves the gold for the hero. A neat match. It is known that a good number of mythological epics repeat this conquest at the end. And I find it very likely that this myth will repeat in Book seven. The Serpent Ladon, will be in this case Nagini. Another LV pet and companion. Harry will enlist the help of the Titan with the weight of the world on his shoulders, who in this case would be Severus Snape, as long as the theory above holds and Sevvie is the overburdened Atlas of Book Seven thanks to his covering up of Harry's victory over Voldemort. Ginny will also be involved, which is very Alchemical (the battle as Foes and Lovers) so I give it a 98% chance easily if not 100%. I don't know if I have posted it to this list, but I think Snape will get the literary credit for saving Ginny's life, and shortly after he will die himself, with Nagini, leaving Voldie alone with only his last piece of tattered soul to defend. The Final Labor of Heracles is to travel to the Underworld to retrieve the Dog Cerberus. This is the final battle, so it will get a post of its own too. There are ten time as meny myths listed under the heading of final confrontation, so it wouldn't fit here even if I wanted to try. OKay on to the Horcruxes... The Ravenclaw Horcrux. The list of things that belong: Evander - Archon of Athens 382BC ---> Oll(E)vanders - Makers of fine wands since 382BC ---------> King Evander - Friend of Aeneas (Roman equivalent of Heracles) Pallas - Son of Evander -----> Pallas Athena - Goddess and bearer of the Aegis (A shield with the head of Medusa {Many Serpent Heads} on the front) The Raven - Trickster Animal, Shapeshifter The Hydra -----> another many headed Serpentine creature. The mythology of Pallas and Evander tend to hint strongly at a good Mr Ollivander. In the story of Athena Pallas was a Titan. Which I'm reading as a possible family connection with a Hogwarts founder. The Aegis and the Hydra are obviously similar symbols, The Aegis relates to Pallas which connects by coincedence to Evander, The Hydra relates to Heracles and comes from the river of Lerna( Learner?) from which I draw possible links to the Ravenclaw Object. As I have posted in a previous note, there is canon that backs all these assumptions, so the connections essentially rest on those premises, although they seem to work in an abstract way, in and of themselves. Heracles encounters and ally of the Hydra, the Crab. More coincedental connections such as D.A. = Diagon Alley, Dumbledores Army, and the Dark Arts; Raven the Trickster and the Weasley Tricksters; Crabbe and Crab, all seem to culminate together into a fine looking scenario multilayered with mythology, book hints and collective cryptic likenesses. Scaling it back to a very basic theory, The Ravenclaw object is in Diagon alley hidden in secret magic at Ollivanders, It's probably a wand and an attack on Harry by some Death Eaters can be expected. Dumbledores Army might regroup to battle in the streets while Harry goes after this Horcrux. Oh yes, and Peter Pettigrew, I believe he might show here. Heracles finds himself at the mercy of the Hydra during his encounter, he is almost crushed by it when his nephew who hears his cries for help and cannot bear to leave him to die, helps Heracles defeat the monster. It sounds somewhat like a myth that suits repayment of a life debt. But thats only IMO. The Hufflepuff Object: This one is very very complex, and I am not sure it will be finished all in one piece. The myths that belong are: Caradoc: see Saraquels post - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140685 Caradoc - Snake drawing life from his arm --------> The Yule Boar ---> Christmas ------> Boar's Head Meade ------> Hogs Head at Hogsmeade ---> Aberforth Dumbledore? possibly involved? Beowulf - Jut Hero who overcomes a dragon Grendel (Grindelwald), in three encounters. He first destroys one giant dragon and it's hand is pinned to a castle wall as a trophy. (Hufflepuff Cup as a Trophy in Hogwarts? ) His second encounter involves him wading deep into blood tinged waters after a mass of writhing serpents. It takes him a long time to reach the lair of the dragon at the bottom. While he is gone so long he is given up for dead. (Caradoc Dearborn?) Years later he reemerges from hiding to destroy one final Dragon this time he is assisted by a younger warrior named Wiglaf together they slay it and throw it over a cliff. Beowulf dies a hero. Another myth fits in this category, also played out in a few acts: The Chimaera and Bellepheron: Bellepheron is a handsome young gent, but he rebukes the advances of a vengeful queen. She sets her husbnd upon him in her spite and he is requested by the king to take a letter to the king of another nearby land. This is a Bellerophontic letter, meaning tht Bellerophon is the bearer of his own order to be killed (a matter prejudicial to himself). The second king, aware of religious custom to be kind to guests doesn't really want to kill Bellepheron himself and invoke the wrath of gods upon him so he sends Bellepheron to slay the Chimaera. The Chimaera is a beast which is part Lion, Part Goat and Part Snake. The child of Typhus, a giant Dragon and Echidna a part woman part snake creature - this has Alchemical similarity to Voldemorts character lending a good basis for examining the Chimaera as one of Voldemorts Horcruxes. Bellerophon is given golden bridle by Minerva, which he uses to tame Pegasus. He can fly over using Pegasus to locate the Chiamera and destroy it for the king, returning unharmed. Minerva of HP, Professor MacGonagall, gave Harry a Nimbus 2000 broomstick in his first year, a special concession that only he recieved. Later in Goblet of Fire Harry used his Bromstick to fly ver a vicious dragon and capture its Golden egg. I am fairly sure that Harry will fly his broomstick in this quest to destroy the Hufflepuff Horcrux (Chimaera), The Firebolt, will be his Pegasus. The Chimaera's Lion - Goat - Snake mixture brings Aberforth Dumbledore into the equation again, coinciding with the Beowulf scenario above. So it tends to convince me that we are on the right track with this one. Finally Heracles quest for the Boar takes him into battle with Centaurs, the Centaur Chiron is injured by Heracles and eventually gives up his immortality to relieve Prometheus of his burden (Promethus is bound to a rock to be eternally eaten by the Caucasian eagle which again suggests a long suffering hero being freed from his burden). So what does this all add up to? I think it adds to another multilayered, thrilling action sequence, covering the grounds and interior of Hogwarts, the Forbidden Forest, and Hogsmeade, a much larger look into the world of the Centaurs and Mermaids, and possibly some background on the war against Grindelwald. As well as all that there is definitely a three stage destruction of the Hufflepuff Horcrux, in which Harry aids old Order members (possibly Grindelwalds old enemies) including Caradoc and Aberforth (one of which is mortally wounded by the Horcrux and fated to die with Voldemort). Some peripheral coincedences to these mythologies are: Argus Filch - Argus was credited with slaying Echidna (The mother of the Chimaera) Filus Flitwick - Philus the Centaur dies accidentally during Heracles quest for the boar. Gadflies - These appear frequently in the equal mythologies of this general archetype. A stinging bug or beetle could turn up on this occasion. Rita Skeeter perhaps? Maybe a Bumblebee Animagus? This is not all there is, believe it or not, but I could barely fit the Horcruxes in after going through Heracles adventures. It's eminently possible that less than 20% of my theories are even close to the mark, but as you can see, there's definitely something to be gained from looking into the myths anyway. I hope it's fuel for a lot of fires. And I look forward to *heaps* of alternative interpretations which are seriously better than mine! Valky From preety_lady_serenity at yahoo.gr Mon Sep 26 07:29:27 2005 From: preety_lady_serenity at yahoo.gr (Katerina) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 07:29:27 -0000 Subject: Snape vs. James (was re: Prodigal Sons) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140751 Christina, in part: > The problem is, while > we have completely canon evidence that *both* James and Snape were > bullies at one point or another, the HP universe treats them > completely differently. Snape is actively disliked (Harry, Sirius) or > tolerated (Hermione, Lupin), while James is *revered* (by every single > character that knew him, except for Snape of course). I think the difference lies in how the bullied person perceive the bully. Look at the Gryffindors. When they are bullied by their professor they probably tell themselves all kinds of things to feel better. Like, "He is so ugly he probably never gets laid. No wonder he is so irritated." In PS, the students see that their bully is somewhat 'punished' by not having the House Cup in his house for the eleventh year in a row. Unexpected points at the last minute. I can imagine many random second years and first years thinking "Ha take that Snape! Your house is not so perfect after all!" On the other hand James's bullying attitude never gets punished. And as a person who was bullied from age 7 to 12, I can tell you it really hurts. I remember when I was in Snape's situation. I was a little girl who was beaten up by a group of four boys every day. When I sought help the school's teachers said things like, "Oh, it is a defense mechanism honey. Their parents had just divorced." First of all what about me? I return home with a black eye, I was thrown down the stairs twice that year, my body aches all the time. When you see that the teachers themselves show no effort to protect you, you get bitter. So yes, Snape is allowed to be bitter. The guys who tried to get him killed are still seen as great and popular. One of them, James, is even becoming a Head Boy. When Sirius said 'we were children, we did not know what we were doing' (OotP) I really had the urge to slap his so hard across the face. This excuse does not give him the right to feel good about himself. Like Snape, I have my emotional scars. I suffer through nightmares of my bullying, I do not allow anyone to touch me, I flinch at hugs and if I hadn't had two very good friends later in High School, I would have probably remained bitter and cold as ice, as I was during the age of thirteen, when I started High School which is six years in Greece. So yes Snape's bullying is different than James's. The first one is a teacher so you could always dismiss his sayings (like all teenagers do) the other one is a fellow student that ought to be punished but instead he was granted by the school itself the privilege to do as he pleases. Kathlin From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Sep 26 11:46:16 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:46:16 -0000 Subject: Straightforward readings? /TW cup In-Reply-To: <20050925170713.44252.qmail@web32605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140752 Mira: -- Now, it would have made sense for Dumbledore > to transform the cup into a portkey that should have > taken the champion out of the maze instantly. Perhaps > a very accomplished wizard cannot override the > interdiction to define portkeys, but once one has been > made, he can actually change its destination. Of > course, we don't know anything about this rule yet, > but to me it would make sense if it was true. Finwitch: Hermione keeps saying about Hogwarts, a History telling us you cannot apparate or disapparat on Hogwarts grounds (in addition, Snape tells that to Fudge in PoA...) but: in HBP, Dumbledore grants the possibility in Great Hall for apparition lessons. Surely they can, likewise, set a portkey-banners? Unless, of course, the Headmaster lifts it. (which was the case for GoF AND the portkey Dumbledore gave to Harry -- directly to his office. I would assume that you must be authorised to make one -- (Well, Ministry *was* controlling Hogwarts... except for the Headmaster's office...) Also, Dementors *did* keep out of Hogwarts quite well, there are quite a few things people can do, but: the Vanishing Cabinet and some secret passages apparently do allow people to enter by stealth... I wonder about that Hogwarts, a History-- is it really prudent to have a book describing defences where nearly anyone can read it? Finwitch From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 26 12:09:12 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:09:12 -0000 Subject: Is Punishment the only recompense? (was Re: Straightforward readings?) In-Reply-To: <1a8.3fccea8d.3068e4d7@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140753 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at a... wrote: > So will it be enough, that Snape makes a genuine effort to atone, > > and is punished in the more poetic sense of justice by giving his > life away to the cause of Good (and I suspect giving his life away > will be factually accurate by the end of Book 7)? Or, proving to be > DD'sMan, should he help Harry defeat Voldemort and somehow > manage to live through it all, will his good deeds outweigh his bad, > enough that he has paid his debt to WW society? Marianne: I've done massive snippage of Juli's comments to get to her question. I'd be happy with Snape's genuine effort to atone with one addition. I'd like to see him admit in actual, spoken sentences that he did has done some bad things and is genuinely sorry. Hearing about his remorse second-hand from Dumbledore is not enough, IMO. Maybe that's just me as a reader wanting to see the character in question show the emotions and thoughts that others have attributed to him. But, without Snape actually telling/showing me himself, then I'd find the result unsatisfying. Marianne, still in the OFH!Snape camp From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Sep 26 12:19:29 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:19:29 -0000 Subject: 7 parts of V's Souls/ 7Books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140754 crypticamoeba wrote: > What if being the maniacal type of genius she is, JKR decided way > back to infuse her books throughout with this idea of 7 being a > magical number (canon: HBP). Given that there are 7 divided parts > to voldemorts soul (canon: HBP). What if she decided to introduce > us to one part per book. They may be small and unobtrusive but > there. > > Book 1: > Book 2: Voldemort's Diary (Destroyed) > Book 3: > Book 4: Naghini (sp?) > Book 5: Locket in #12 (theory based on canon locket in OotP and RAB > being Rudolfus A Black OotP and HBP) > Book 6: Marvolo's Ring > Book 7: Valky: I agree. And, note also, that The Diary, Nagini and the Locket, are all partially revealed for the first time *prior* to Harry's return to Hogwarts The Diary - In Flourish and Blotts Book2 Nagini - Little Hangleton Book4 The Locket - Grimmauld Place Book5 The Ring - On Dumbledore's Hand Book6 This would place a partial reveal of the Book1 Horcrux, in Diagon Alley. IMO this one really could be already found by clever listees here, in Ollivanders shop. I am pretty sold on that myself. and the Book3 Horcrux too should be revealed in some part of the Leaky Cauldron, Florean Fortescues, or the Magical Menagerie or even in the Daily Prophet or on the Knight bus!! phew LOL good luck hunting through that lot for it. I think that this one is supposed to be very well hidden. > Crypticamoeba: > concerning Hufflepuff's Cup we came up with the House Cup and > Quidditch Cup both as possibilities i do not think either are truly > possible. As V intended the Diary to reside at Hogwart's (prob. the > Chamber) and 2 Horcri in the same location seems unsafe and > Harry/Dumbledore would have recognized it. > Valky: Lets not write off the trophy cabinet quite yet, I think it might still come into play. Here are some more observations in agreement with the pattern that you're talking about. The pattern continues into second time in each book that we seem to be getting a sniff of the hidden Horcrux. It usually happens around the midwinter of the books.. Observe: The Diary - Harry gets a hold of it shortly after Christmas/COS Nagini - There is a reference made to Voldies Snake around Christmastime again, can't look it up sorry, Don't have book so I am recalling from memory, correct me if I am wrong. The Locket - We see Kreachers Lair with shiny objects retrieved from the Drawing room in it, again at Christmas time. The Ring - The pattern deviates here, but I suspect that this is in keeping with the pattern. The next time we see the ring is just prior to October, and Dumbledore says, the Ring is no longer a Horcrux. The second half of the pattern seems to work for known Horcruxes, but what about our speculative ones? Ollivanders and wands are not mentioned around Christmas time in PS/SS as far as I can find, but I am still looking. In POA Harry's midwinter is spent learning the Patronus, and obsessing over his Firebolt and the Quidditch cup, there's hints about the Time Turner and Lupins Werewolf affliction, some Fire Salamanders and Divination Lessons too.. The best match I can find with the beginning of the book is the Divination lessons - Harry reads the covers of some interesting books on Divination in Diagon Alley. OTOH things do look good for the Quidditch Cup which is mentioned in both sections of the book, although that's hardly unusual, its still a match. Valky From nrenka at yahoo.com Mon Sep 26 12:29:15 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:29:15 -0000 Subject: Straightforward readings? (was Re: Truth vs. what meets Harry's eye ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140755 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > As far as believing Snape or not in HBP, it depends on whose > judgement you trust more: DD or Bella. Speaking as an OFH!Snape fan, the answer is: neither. :) Dumbledore has been set up to make particular kinds of mistakes, which Alla discussed pretty well downthread. He has suspicions about Tom Riddle but he doesn't share them with anyone else, ensuring that Tom is fully and completely able to work his charm on other people. Dumbledore doesn't share and doesn't confide, so he never gets that cross-checking second opinion. He cuts Harry off in Harry's suspicions: rather than give him real solid actual information to relieve Harry's worries, he demands that Harry believe in Snape via believing in Dumbledore himself. Second-hand trust. Bellatrix, of course, is loony and suspicious, but she does peg the essence of the issue: why does *Snape* always come out looking so good? An open and interesting question, I'd say. And one which OFH! provides a surprisingly 'straightforward' answer to, precisely because it allows a number of motivations and disparate actions to coexist, and doesn't tie the character into one ideological orientation. I suspect it's hard to like mostly because of its thematic resonances: it means that Snape is not a positive redemption story, but a negative exemplar. -Nora wakes up to a disturbing lack of sun From dc.thorburn at ntlworld.com Mon Sep 26 13:04:02 2005 From: dc.thorburn at ntlworld.com (Derek Thorburn) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:04:02 +0100 Subject: Harry's approach to Dumbledore's death Message-ID: <001d01c5c29a$c5c34cb0$3e781652@thorburn> No: HPFGUIDX 140756 Yesterday, I was reading reactions to HBP on Mugglenet and one reaction was that it was felt that Harry's reaction to DD's death was much different to his reaction to that of Sirius, especially when you consider that both were quite close to him, though of course Dumbledore was more a headmaster, whereas Sirius was Harry's godfather. I felt the same - when Sirius died, Harry is desperately trying to get to him and, once he gets back to DD's office, lets rip at DD. He afterwards doesn't seem to know what he wants - to be with friends or without them, has a go at contacting Sirius himself, then goes after Nearly Headless Nick to ask questions, hoping the outcome will be that, as Nick's come back as a ghost, Sirius will as well. On his return to the Dursleys, he wallows in gloom, refusing meals. He certainly seems to have matured a lot since then, when you look at his approach to DD's death. After Snape killed DD, Harry, instead of yelling and trying to get to his mentor, went after Snape instead, whereas it took rather a little more time for him to run after Bellatrix in OotP. Also, at the funeral, you notice him deciding on more positive action, rather than wallowing in gloom. Derek From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Sep 26 14:32:43 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:32:43 -0000 Subject: Knowing your Latin (was Re: Mindset in the Wizarding World) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140757 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bibphile" wrote: bibphile: > 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. > He could have at least looked for Latin roots or tried them on mice > first. What would have happened if he'd tried that spell on McLaggen > like he planned? Geoff: I quite agree that a knowledge of Latin might well have warned Harry of the danger inherent in this spell. He had already met Rictusempra earlier: 'Harry pointed his wand straght 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. Just as an afterthought, how did Snape manage to emerge from the woodwork so quickly to deal with Malfoy's injuries? He was through the door within seconds of the spell being cast. From phil at pcsgames.net Mon Sep 26 14:44:56 2005 From: phil at pcsgames.net (Phil Vlasak) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 10:44:56 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: 7 parts of V's Souls/ 7Books References: Message-ID: <03ac01c5c2a8$e85a8d70$6600a8c0@phil> No: HPFGUIDX 140758 crypticamoeba wrote: > > What if being the maniacal type of genius she is, JKR decided way > > back to infuse her books throughout with this idea of 7 being a > > magical number (canon: HBP). Given that there are 7 divided parts > > to voldemorts soul (canon: HBP). What if she decided to introduce > > us to one part per book. They may be small and unobtrusive but > > there. > > > > Book 1: > > Book 2: Voldemort's Diary (Destroyed) > > Book 3: > > Book 4: Naghini (sp?) > > Book 5: Locket in #12 (theory based on canon locket in OotP and RAB > > being Rudolfus A Black OotP and HBP) > > Book 6: Marvolo's Ring > > Book 7: > > Valky: > I agree. And, note also, that The Diary, Nagini and the Locket, are > all partially revealed for the first time *prior* to Harry's return to > Hogwarts > > The Diary - In Flourish and Blotts Book2 > Nagini - Little Hangleton Book4 > The Locket - Grimmauld Place Book5 > The Ring - On Dumbledore's Hand Book6 > > This would place a partial reveal of the Book1 Horcrux, in Diagon > Alley. IMO this one really could be already found by clever listees > here, in Ollivanders shop. I am pretty sold on that myself. > and the Book3 Horcrux too should be revealed in some part of the Leaky > Cauldron, Florean Fortescues, or the Magical Menagerie or even in the > Daily Prophet or on the Knight bus!! phew LOL good luck hunting > through that lot for it. I think that this one is supposed to be > very well hidden. > > > > Crypticamoeba: > > concerning Hufflepuff's Cup we came up with the House Cup and > > Quidditch Cup both as possibilities i do not think either are truly > > possible. As V intended the Diary to reside at Hogwart's (prob. the > > Chamber) and 2 Horcri in the same location seems unsafe and > > Harry/Dumbledore would have recognized it. > > > > Valky: > Lets not write off the trophy cabinet quite yet, I think it might > still come into play. Here are some more observations in agreement > with the pattern that you're talking about. > > The pattern continues into second time in each book that we seem to be > getting a sniff of the hidden Horcrux. It usually happens around the > midwinter of the books.. Observe: > > The Diary - Harry gets a hold of it shortly after Christmas/COS > Nagini - There is a reference made to Voldies Snake around > Christmastime again, can't look it up sorry, Don't have book so I am > recalling from memory, correct me if I am wrong. > The Locket - We see Kreachers Lair with shiny objects retrieved from > the Drawing room in it, again at Christmas time. > The Ring - The pattern deviates here, but I suspect that this is in > keeping with the pattern. The next time we see the ring is just prior > to October, and Dumbledore says, the Ring is no longer a Horcrux. > > The second half of the pattern seems to work for known Horcruxes, but > what about our speculative ones? > > Ollivanders and wands are not mentioned around Christmas time in PS/SS > as far as I can find, but I am still looking. > > In POA Harry's midwinter is spent learning the Patronus, and obsessing > over his Firebolt and the Quidditch cup, there's hints about the Time > Turner and Lupins Werewolf affliction, some Fire Salamanders and > Divination Lessons too.. The best match I can find with the beginning > of the book is the Divination lessons - Harry reads the covers of some > interesting books on Divination in Diagon Alley. > > OTOH things do look good for the Quidditch Cup which is mentioned in > both sections of the book, although that's hardly unusual, its still a > match. > > Valky Now Phil: A better match for the pattern in PS/S would be the large black and silver screaming volume that Harry opened at Christmas in the Restricted Section in the library the books contained powerful Dark Magic never taught at Hogwarts, and only read by older students studying advanced Defense Against the Dark Arts. The hint att the beginning may be in Diagon Alley's Flourish and Blotts where Harry saw books as large as paving stones bound in leather. Phil who is now looking through book 3. From laura_momiji at tin.it Mon Sep 26 15:51:59 2005 From: laura_momiji at tin.it (Momiji) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:51:59 -0000 Subject: Some questions (maybe previously done, sorry) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140759 Hello to everyone! My name is Laura and I'm a lurker, my questions can be stupid and my English is bad, but... Why Dumbledore was so sure about the number of Horcruxes and their "form" ("important objects")? Why seven? Only because it's a "magic number"? Why Voldemort did Horcruxes with that objects? (Too "simple" to find them.) Those questions are not mine, but from my friends that did not like the book, I'd like to explain to them that those aren't "plot holes" (and also to tranquilize myself about it. ^^;;; ) I'm sorry for my bad English. Thanks a lot! Laura -- "I... I've got a job to do.' 'Well, then, you must get on and do it, my dear boy,' said Dumbledore softly." from Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince From jmoses22002 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 26 16:11:59 2005 From: jmoses22002 at yahoo.com (jmoses22002) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:11:59 -0000 Subject: Book 7 Deaths In-Reply-To: <20050925171738.23147.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140760 laurie wrote everyone has their own opinions on this but I see it > working out one of four ways: > > a) Lord V dies at the hands of Harry. Harry lives and > has to deal with life after Lord V. > > b) BOTH Lord V AND Harry die in an epic battle and the > wizarding world makes Harry sort of a maryter for all > time. > > c) Lord V dies at the hand of someone else and Harry > lives not having any hand in the death of Lord V > > d) Harry dies at the hand of Lord V who is then > promptly offed by a third party. > > now I am rooting for choice a or b; but being very > practical this is what I had come up with. Jmoses E) Every one lives accept Lord V. Then Lord V comes back in the TV cartoon series, "Harry Potter And The Search for More Money." Sorry couldn't resist. From ragingjess at hotmail.com Mon Sep 26 16:14:40 2005 From: ragingjess at hotmail.com (jessicabathurst) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:14:40 -0000 Subject: Location, Location (was: Knowing your Latin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140761 Geoff: > Just as an afterthought, how did Snape manage to emerge from the > woodwork so quickly to deal with Malfoy's injuries? He was through the > door within seconds of the spell being cast. Apparently, Harry wasn't the only one constantly tracking Draco's movements. It's a veritable conga line of obsession. I'm still confused about the sudden appearance of Tonks outside the Room of Requirement. Might anyone point me to some good posts discussing this (as I'm sure it has been thoroughly examined)? Yours, Jessica (who never trusts metamorphagi - they're shifty) From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Sep 26 14:47:20 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:47:20 -0000 Subject: Is Punishment the only recompense? (was Re: Straightforward readings?) In-Reply-To: <1a8.3fccea8d.3068e4d7@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140762 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at a... wrote: > > > Now, I realize that as Snape is atoning for some wrongs (his DE > actions) he is committing others (his verbal abuse of certain > students). But I find those wrongs to be lesser wrongs--and we > get into that abuse argument here, but there are greater and > lesser wrongs, and Snape's brand of verbal abuse is way down > the scale compared to the Dursleys' abuse, let alone the wrongs > of Umbridge, Crouch Jr, Lockhart or Pettigrew, who all murdered > or attempted to murder children with no compunction or remorse. > Snape may never be punished for these wrongs, but when you put > it into perspective, they are fairly tame, and the fact that miserable > gits find themselves ostracized and friendless may be the most > fitting punishment for their "horrible" behavior anyway. > Oh, that would be, IMO, extraordinarily poor writing. Sorry, you (the generic you) just can't let characters in this kind of genre go unpunished for that type of behavior - no matter how it stacks up in the "great scheme of things." It's just not what many (I really think most) people read the books for. And if JKR trots out the "I'm writing for myself argument," then I would have to say that, regretably, she is being incredibly naive and extremely foolish. Now, punishment doesn't mean lifelong punishment. A single deeply reluctant "I'm sorry, I was wrong," followed by death in the cause of good, would do it. However, minus the apology, no matter what Harry comes to think about Snape, then I would say JKR will have failed utterly (if JKR does indeed intend us to see Snape on the side of good. If he is OFH or ESE, then death is quite adequate). It would also be extraordinarily poor writing to let Umbridge go unpunished. However, there are strong hints that she won't be in JKR's interviews, so I have hope she won't be foolish with regard to Snape, either. Lupinlore From kat.rohts at gmx.de Mon Sep 26 13:04:21 2005 From: kat.rohts at gmx.de (bocadetomates) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:04:21 -0000 Subject: Bullying was Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140763 > Jen Reese wrote: Thinking about Riddle's life vs. Harry's, it occurred to me we > have some canon for how JKR may view bullying in Potterverse. In > Harry's case, the enemy has always been someone clearly outside > himself None of these relationships seems to have altered > Harry's view of > *himself* as a worthy person. That's an incredibly important > psychological skill, to be able to 'externalize the enemy'. > Researchers now believe this ability is connected to the formation > of optimism. Boca now: This view on bullying is very convincing to me but still I'd like to make some objections to some of the examples used, or rather, try and refine the argument. > Jen: OTOH, Riddle experienced abandonment, separation problems and > neglect, all of which are very vague and tend to cause a person to > internalize the enemy as himself. It's no surprise Riddle thought > Dumbledore was a doctor come to take him away to a padded cell--he > believed that the problem resided inside himself on *some level*, > and directed this outward by hurting others to gain power/control > over a situation he had no control over. Boca: I think this view is an excellent explanation for the way Harry is able to handle bullying, and I also follow Voldemort being just the contrary due to circumstances in his early life (though we're getting away from the topic of bullying here). But Riddle suspecting Dumbledore to want to take him to a padded cell - well, that was just plain realism, wasn't it? Riddle was at that point already so twisted that the problem actually DID "reside inside himself on some level". However, if we take directing things outward "by hurting others to gain power/control over a situation [we have]no control over" as measure or evidence for this phenomenon of not being able to externalize the enemy, than nobody, not even Harry, seems to be able to do that. We have seen nearly everybody, in the WW as well as in the real world, vent their anger on someone or pull just the right strings they know will hurt somebody deeply when they feel they are in danger of getting overridden in an argument. Anybody who says now that to vent your anger on someone doesn't quite play in the same league as young Riddle's torturing other kids by hanging their pets from the rafters (or the things he did later as Voldie): You're absolutely right. So I think we have to be careful not to paint in black and white. The world isn't split into people who are able to externalize the enemy and others who aren't. Like I said, even Harry, who has this ability to a great extent, doesn't walk around in a Dalai-Lama-like mood all the time, chanting "I am o.k., you are o.k., everybody's o.k.". Even Harry thinks there might be something wrong with *him*, especially in CoS when he discovers that "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me". (Touching on the Horcrux!Harry theme, but this could also be read metaphorically as JKR's outlook on the "enemy inside"). But I'm drifting off. > Jen:Now, to apply this to the other situations, perhaps the harm comes in for those people who can't clearly see when the enemy is outside > themselves. Snape clearly believed James/Sirius were totally to > blame and vice-versa (unless there's more information to come, at > least). Boca: Do you mean to say that no harm was done to Snape and that that was because he was able to see that it was James and Sirius' fault they bullied him and not his own? Then I would like to disagree. Actually, I think that a lot of harm was done to Snape, and that the way he treats Neville and the Trio (and probably, I think, a few select students in every class he teaches) is the direct expression of that. Now - trying not to think black/white - this doesn't mean he was not able to realize it was James and Sirius' fault. There are thousands of different ways of assigning blame, and it is all too easily split up between different people (which is also very lucky because most situations are too complex to assign blame to just one person/one word they said/one thing they did.). So Snape might (have) be(en) thinking or feeling something along the lines of: "Bullies always come for weak people, so I'm a weak person, and it's disgusting to bully someone who is weaker than yourself, so James/Sirius are disgusting". So James and Sirius making Snape think of himself as a weak person (that is, inflicting harm on him, and a way of Snape internalizing the enemy to some extent) wouldn't stop Snape from realising the bullying was their fault. In fact, being *completely* unable to externalize the enemy seems to be really rare, or we would have more people saying: "Well, they *had* to beat me up, really, because I *am* such a pain..." and less people like Snape who nurse the deepest of hatreds for their bullies. Jen: > This idea won't work for everyone on this list ;), not with a hot > button issue. It's an intesting framework though, and one backed up > by research in Muggle circles. Boca: It certainly works for me, I just wanted to point out that Neville isn't the only one in an ambiguous position in this framework. Bocadetomates (whose own experiences in being bullied probably influenced more of her positions then shed'd have liked. BTW, are there any people on the list, who would out themselves as having been the bullies? I think many bullying incidents aren't even recognised to be just that by the bullies themselves...) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Sep 26 18:03:37 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:03:37 -0000 Subject: Some questions (maybe previously done, sorry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140764 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Momiji" wrote: > Hello to everyone! > My name is Laura and I'm a lurker, my questions can be stupid and my > English is bad, but... > Why Dumbledore was so sure about the number of Horcruxes and their > "form" ("important objects")? > Why seven? Only because it's a "magic number"? bboyminn: I'll do my best to try and answer, perhaps other will have deeper insight than mine. Indeed in most of Western society SEVEN is a lucky and powerful number. It is mentioned in the Bible many many times. Further, Voldemort didn't invent the idea of the Horcrux, he simply applied an existing idea and expanded on it. If one Horcrux is good, then logic says that more would be better, but what would be the best? What number would not only give protection, but /powerful/ protection? Two would be a nice safeguard, three would be a good number, but what is the most significant number that would still be reasonably achievable? Why SEVEN of course; a magically powerful number. This was Riddle's idea, when he questions Slughorn about the Horcrux, Riddle specifically mentions SEVEN and it's magical significants. Note that Slughorn is horrified by the idea. > Laura continues: > > Why Voldemort did Horcruxes with that objects? (Too "simple" to find > them.) > Those questions are not mine, but from my friends that did not like > the book, I'd like to explain to them that those aren't "plot holes" > (and also to tranquilize myself about it. ^^;;; ) > > I'm sorry for my bad English. > Thanks a lot! > > Laura bboyminn: I assume you are asking why Voldemort chose the specific object he chose? Voldemort isn't content to simply be protected from death, he fears death to a degree that he must have THE MOST POWERFUL protection against death, even if he has to make up that appearance of powerful protection. So, he chose magically powerful and historically significant objects to become the Horcruxes because he believe, or at least hoped, that would increase the power of his protection. Note that these objects were definitly not easy to find. He had to lie, cheap, kill, and steal to get them, and then went to great and complex lengths to hide the objects. Notice the complex and difficult protections surrounding the Necklace Horcrus in the Cave. It was very difficult for a wizard to find and impossible for a muggle to find. So, whether it's true on not, Voldemort is doing everything possible to create the illusion of power around his Horcruxes. He may not have increased their power, but he has convinced himself that he has. He has convinced himself that he has created the greatest and most powerful protection against death that has ever been achieved by a wizard. Not sure if that completely answers your question, but I hope it helps. STeve/bboyminn From papa at marvels.org Mon Sep 26 14:59:09 2005 From: papa at marvels.org (Ralph Miller) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 10:59:09 -0400 Subject: Dumbledore's trust in Tom Riddle and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <42FD968C0000F905@mta10.wss.scd.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140765 Alla: I really love Hickengruendler's posts and I read that one. I disagree with it, because I think that in case of Tom Riddle that is EXACTLY what Dumbledore did - relied on blind faith, even if he disagrees with it. If this is not a sign of blind faith, I don't know what is. What USE is it for anybody else if Dumbledore does not inform anybody that young Riddle already was quite creepy individual at eleven? RM: I don't think this is so much a show of blind faith, (after all Dumbledore didn't say that he believed that Riddle was had turned over a new leaf), so much as a desire on his part not to prejudice things so that Riddle wouldn't have a chance to turn over a new leaf. If he had told everybody, " look, he's a creepy kid but he may grow out of it" how much chance would he have at a new start? just my $.02 RM. From scarah at gmail.com Mon Sep 26 19:43:37 2005 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:43:37 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: 7 parts of V's Souls/ 7Books In-Reply-To: <03ac01c5c2a8$e85a8d70$6600a8c0@phil> References: <03ac01c5c2a8$e85a8d70$6600a8c0@phil> Message-ID: <32025905092612436562fcbf@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140766 crypticamoeba:Book 1: Book 1: Book 2: Voldemort's Diary (Destroyed) Book 3: Book 4: Naghini (sp?) Book 5: Locket in #12 (theory based on canon locket in OotP and RAB being Rudolfus A Black OotP and HBP) Book 6: Marvolo's Ring Book 7: Sarah: I think that Philosopher's Stone represents the slice of Voldemort's soul that is in his body now, the one that roamed the forest floor weaker than the meanest ghost and returned with Quirrell, for the reason that we see this piece drinking unicorn blood and occupying Quirrell's head. I think Prisoner of Azkaban corresponds to the Scarcrux. :) The reason is that Dementors are attempting to eat it throughout the book. I do not think Nagini is a Horcrux, I think that is a red herring which is mentioned to educate Harry and the reader about the possibility of a living thing being a Horcrux. I think Goblet of Fire represents Hufflepuff's cup, even though we don't see it. The reasons are that Hufflepuff starts getting recognition for the first time in this book, a Hufflepuff character dies, and there are two cups that are central to the story (one of them being the title). I agree with you about the diary, locket and ring. Book 7 may be something of Gryffindor's or Ravenclaw's. Sarah [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tab1669 at elnet.com Mon Sep 26 18:39:08 2005 From: tab1669 at elnet.com (flyingmonkeypurple) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:39:08 -0000 Subject: Harry's approach to Dumbledore's death In-Reply-To: <001d01c5c29a$c5c34cb0$3e781652@thorburn> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140767 Derek Thorburn wrote: Harry's reaction to DD's death was much different to his reaction to that of Sirius I felt the same - when Sirius died, Harry is desperately trying to get to him afterwards then goes after Nearly Headless Nick.On his return to the Dursleys, he wallows in gloom, refusing meals. He certainly seems to have matured a lot since then. when you look at his approach to DD's death. After Snape killed DD, Harry, instead of yelling and trying to get to his mentor, went after Snape Flyingmonkeypurple : I think the only difference is that Harry didn't want to believe that Sirius was actually dead. With Dumbledore he knew that he was dead because the spell was broken. Then on both accounts he wanted to kick some butt. Harry didn't get redemption, but he will in the end in my head. Harry is not going to let them get away with anything. He's going for blood shed. Harry knows from the time before that once you're dead you are dead. Also Harry has seen three people die in three years in a row. He may know how to cope with loss better. Loss has been part of his whole life. Flyingmonkeypurple From lliannanshe at comcast.net Mon Sep 26 20:59:39 2005 From: lliannanshe at comcast.net (Lliannanshe) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:59:39 -0000 Subject: Some questions (maybe previously done, sorry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140768 bboyminn: <> Voldemort isn't content to simply be protected from death, he fears death to a degree that he must have THE MOST POWERFUL protection against death, even if he has to make up that appearance of powerful protection. So, he chose magically powerful and historically significant objects to become the Horcruxes because he believe, or at least hoped, that would increase the power of his protection. <> Lliann: I always thought that the historical significance of the Horcruxes was an actual level of protection for Voldemort. What wizard would want to destroy the Slytherin Locket or the Hufflepuff Cup? What makes these items THE MOST POWERFUL Horcruxes is that an unknowing wizard would collect, honor and keep these objects safe from harm. Not destroy them. Just my two pennies. Lliannanshe From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Sep 26 21:47:13 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:47:13 -0000 Subject: Straightforward readings? (was Re: Truth vs. what meets Harry's eye ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140769 Nora: > Dumbledore has been set up to make particular kinds of mistakes, which Alla discussed pretty well downthread. He has suspicions about Tom Riddle but he doesn't share them with anyone else, ensuring that Tom is fully and completely able to work his charm on other people. Pippin: He didn't have much choice, really. Do you think anyone in the WW would have cared about some Muggle kid's rabbit? The Weasley twins used Ron's puffskein for bludger practice! There's not much sympathy for the helpless in the WW, is there. What OFH! Snape doesn't explain is why Snape should bother -- he doesn't seem to be a thrill-seeker like James or Sirius, so why should he undertake such a risky course, in which he can ultimately rely neither on Dumbledore's protection nor Voldemort's? It's not as though spying is all he knows how to do. He's obviously not after popularity, nor wealth, nor influence. If he's into the Dark Arts so thoroughly, why park himself at Hogwarts, where there's no opportunity to practice them? Wouldn't Durmstrang have suited him better? Karkaroff's an old friend; surely he would have been welcome? Pippin From bibphile at yahoo.com Mon Sep 26 23:53:23 2005 From: bibphile at yahoo.com (bibphile) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 23:53:23 -0000 Subject: Is Punishment the only recompense? (was Re: Straightforward readings?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140770 > > Marianne: > > enough that he has paid > > I've done massive snippage of Juli's comments to get to her question. > I'd be happy with Snape's genuine effort to atone with one addition. > I'd like to see him admit in actual, spoken sentences that he did has > done some bad things and is genuinely sorry. Hearing about his > remorse second-hand from Dumbledore is not enough, IMO. Maybe that's > just me as a reader wanting to see the character in question show the > emotions and thoughts that others have attributed to him. But, > without Snape actually telling/showing me himself, then I'd find the > result unsatisfying. > I doubt that Snapw will ever verbally apologize. I believe in DDM Snape but I think he himkself would find the words meaningless. I think he believes that the only meaningful way to show his remorse is through his actions. Talk is cheap. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 00:04:49 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:04:49 -0000 Subject: OFH! Snape again. WAS: Straightforward readings? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140771 Pippin: > What OFH! Snape doesn't explain is why Snape should bother -- > he doesn't seem to be a thrill-seeker like James or Sirius, so why > should he undertake such a risky course, in which he can ultimately > rely neither on Dumbledore's protection nor Voldemort's? Alla: I think that Snape sees it not as most risky course, actually. I speculate that Snape sees it as SAFEST course, actually, the one which can assure his ultimate survival and if that ultimately he chose Evil, may probably make him the next Dark Lord OR if he does not choose Evil to help him survive and in Snape's mind let him help good guys. Pippin: > It's not as though spying is all he knows how to do. He's obviously > not after popularity, nor wealth, nor influence. Alla: LOL! I don't know about whether Snape is after wealth or not, but he is OBVIOUSLY not after popularity or influence? Sorry, but I think that it is quite obvious that Snape IS after popularity and influence. JMO, of course. "I think the loss of the Order of Merlin hit him hard" - PoA, p.423. I understand of course that Lupin is not the most reliable witness for you ( although I completely believe his words :-)), but then how about Dumbledore's " he is not unbalanced, he just suffered a severe dissapointment"? Dissapointment that Snape would not be able to be everybody's hero, get Order of Merlin, First Class, and watch execution of Sirius and Remus, approved by MoM, maybe? We also have of course some small things - as in insistence on calling himself Potions Master, while no other teacher does so, well, Flitwick at least definitely does not, some other stuff - like his tirads to Harry ( you should thank me on the bended knee), but I think his temper tantrum at the end of PoA really illustrates his desire to be popular the best. Pippin: If he's into the Dark > Arts so thoroughly, why park himself at Hogwarts, where there's no > opportunity to practice them? Wouldn't Durmstrang have suited him > better? Karkaroff's an old friend; surely he would have been welcome? Alla: Because he wants to stay out of Azkaban MORE than he wants to openly practice Dark Arts, maybe? And as we know Dumbledore's protection was the only thing that kept him out of Azkaban. I am not sure if Dumbledore would agree ( well, he probably would agree - he is that kind of guy, dear Headmaster), or whether he would be able to shelter Snape from Azkaban if he went to Durmstrangs. Too far away from Hogwarts, IMO. So, Snape stays and bites his time, picking and choosing which side to take and the starting point where he starts to choose NOT Dumbledore's side would be the end of POA, where Dumbledore ( in Snape mind) let him be publickly mocked and humiliated. I don't think that Snape is the kind of guy, who takes humiliation well, personally, even if it is only in his mind. I really like this line of thought, even if it is mostly speculative, because I believe that there are signs which may support it. Just my opinion. Alla From sherriola at earthlink.net Tue Sep 27 00:19:07 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:19:07 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] OFH! Snape again. WAS: Straightforward readings? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <008f01c5c2f9$149dac50$cf21f204@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 140772 Alla: Because he wants to stay out of Azkaban MORE than he wants to openly practice Dark Arts, maybe? And as we know Dumbledore's protection was the only thing that kept him out of Azkaban. I am not sure if Dumbledore would agree ( well, he probably would agree - he is that kind of guy, dear Headmaster), or whether he would be able to shelter Snape from Azkaban if he went to Durmstrangs. Too far away from Hogwarts, IMO. So, Snape stays and bites his time, picking and choosing which side to take and the starting point where he starts to choose NOT Dumbledore's side would be the end of POA, where Dumbledore ( in Snape mind) let him be publickly mocked and humiliated. I don't think that Snape is the kind of guy, who takes humiliation well, personally, even if it is only in his mind. I really like this line of thought, even if it is mostly speculative, because I believe that there are signs which may support it. Just my opinion. Alla Sherry now: I like your thoughts on that, Alla. I would also like to add, that Pippin's question got me thinking. It seems to me that OFH Snape is the perfect embodiment of the negative side of Slytherin. He is not loyal to either side; he is out to do the best for himself. It may not be as complicated as wanting to be the next dark lord. It could just be that he turns his coat, depending on which side he believes to be the most powerful at the time, and or the one that can give him the most at the time. Whether that be recognition, reward, honor, dark arts ... I don't have a clue. But the whole essence of out for himself Snape would be that he is out to pick the side that will win, in his estimation, and the side that will ultimately give him the best, whatever that might be to him. It could actually explain so much of Snape, without him having to be either Dumbledore's or Voldemort's man. The ultimate Slytherin, out to save his own skin. Sherry From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 00:41:18 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:41:18 -0000 Subject: OFH! Snape again. WAS: Straightforward readings? In-Reply-To: <008f01c5c2f9$149dac50$cf21f204@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140773 Alla: Because he wants to stay out of Azkaban MORE than he wants to openly practice Dark Arts, maybe? And as we know Dumbledore's protection was the only thing that kept him out of Azkaban. I am not sure if Dumbledore would agree ( well, he probably would agree - he is that kind of guy, dear Headmaster), or whether he would be able to shelter Snape from Azkaban if he went to Durmstrangs. Too far away from Hogwarts, IMO. So, Snape stays and bites his time, picking and choosing which side to take and the starting point where he starts to choose NOT Dumbledore's side would be the end of POA, where Dumbledore ( in Snape mind) let him be publickly mocked and humiliated. I don't think that Snape is the kind of guy, who takes humiliation well, personally, even if it is only in his mind. I really like this line of thought, even if it is mostly speculative, because I believe that there are signs which may support it. Sherry now: I like your thoughts on that, Alla. I would also like to add, that Pippin's question got me thinking. It seems to me that OFH Snape is the perfect embodiment of the negative side of Slytherin. He is not loyal to either side; he is out to do the best for himself. It may not be as complicated as wanting to be the next dark lord. It could just be that he turns his coat, depending on which side he believes to be the most powerful at the time, and or the one that can give him the most at the time. Whether that be recognition, reward, honor, dark arts ... I don't have a clue. But the whole essence of out for himself Snape would be that he is out to pick the side that will win, in his estimation, and the side that will ultimately give him the best, whatever that might be to him. It could actually explain so much of Snape, without him having to be either Dumbledore's or Voldemort's man. The ultimate Slytherin, out to save his own skin. vmonte: I agree with both of you. OFH Snape has always seemed (to me anyway) the best way to make sense of Snape's character. The Order and the DEs seem to have him pegged as either or, but I think that the confusion completely stems from the fact that Snape is not easily pegged. Both sides are looking at him in the wrong way. Vivian Who thinks that a device that stops time would be more effective than using a time-turner to finish the enormous pile of work that is sitting in front of her. Too bad someone didn't have one of those on the tower. From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 00:58:27 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:58:27 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140774 zgirnius: Harry was very upset by seeing this memory of Snape's. So much so, that he took the chance to Floo to 12 Grimmauld Place, where he discussed this scene with Sirius and Lupin. Both of them could see how upset Harry was, yet all they could tell him was that James grew out of this sort of behavior, and he and Snape had bad feelings for each other form the start. If Snape were a habitual bully, don't you think they would have mentioned this to Harry? Harry is especially upset by what he sees as James attacking Snape for no good reason. he specifically brings this concern up for Sirius and Lupin. "nut he just attacked Snape for no good reason, just because-well, just because you said you were bored". If there were some excellent reasons for James to dislike Snape, wouldn't it have made sense to bring it up here? But no, the reasons they give boil down to, James and Sirius were young and arrogant... vmonte: No, I don't think that they would have mentioned that Snape was a bully to Harry. JKR has a way of never letting her characters ask questions when she doesn't want her readers to have the information yet. But based on the bully that Snape is now, and the fact that he belonged to a club of bullys while he was a DE, I'm sure that he was one as a teenager too. I'm starting to think that Snape had something to do with recruiting Regulus into that nasty group of kids that later turned out to become DEs. If true, I wouldn't blame Sirius for loathing Snape forever. Even if ultimately it was Regulus's fault for joining in the first place. Vivian From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 01:25:53 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 01:25:53 -0000 Subject: Conflict, imposition, and morality (Christian content) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140776 Del wrote: You see, I have a HUGE problem with defining what is right and what is wrong in the Potterverse. In the Potterverse, it seems like what DD thinks defines what is right and what is wrong. Being on the side of DD is right, having the same morality as DD is right, but doing or thinking differently than DD is wrong. My problem is that I think that DD's actions and morality are far from perfect to begin with. So there's no way I'm going to use DD as the line in the sand to define who is right and who is wrong. vmonte: I also think that Dumbledore has made some huge mistakes--but he is not an evil person, just imperfect like the rest of us. Dumbledore is a moral person; Snape is not. We cannot keep making exuses for Snape. Sorry, but there is a right and wrong way to live--in HP and the real world. There is too much of a moral message in JKR's books for the reasoning behind Snape's immorality to be the idea that it is right to perceive life as though there is no right or wrong way to live. And that there is no good or evil, but only power...blah blah blah. Vivian I'm not a pessimist, just a realist. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Sep 27 02:06:44 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 02:06:44 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140777 Vivian: > I'm starting to think that Snape had something to do with recruiting > Regulus into that nasty group of kids that later turned out to become > DEs. If true, I wouldn't blame Sirius for loathing Snape forever. Even > if ultimately it was Regulus's fault for joining in the first place. > Potioncat: We have Lily's statement that James was a bully. And Snape probably was too. They're tied in the bad boy department. Now, let's compare Regulus and Severus. I get the feeling that you feel sorry for ickle Reggie. Some big bad DE recruited him; he came in, making his Moma proud; then found out what it was all about; changed his mind; and was killed. OK, I feel for him too. I feel sorry for ickle Sevvie. Some big bad DE recruited him; he came in; then found out what it was all about and who was going to get hurt so changed his mind; and began working against the DEs. I'll accept your disagreement if you believe Snape is either ESE or OFH. But we cannot really know what motivated Regulus either. Personally, I think cousins Bella, Narcissa or Lucius are as likely a source of recruitment as Severus. Potioncat From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 02:12:33 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 02:12:33 -0000 Subject: OFH! Snape again. WAS: Straightforward readings? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140778 > >>Alla: > > > > > > So, Snape stays and bites his time, picking and choosing which > > > side to take and the starting point where he starts to choose > > > NOT Dumbledore's side would be the end of POA, where Dumbledore > > > ( in Snape mind) let him be publickly mocked and humiliated. > > > I don't think that Snape is the kind of guy, who takes > > > humiliation well, personally, even if it is only in his mind. > > > > >>Sherry: > > I like your thoughts on that, Alla. I would also like to add, > > that Pippin's question got me thinking. It seems to me that OFH > > Snape is the perfect embodiment of the negative side of > > Slytherin. He is not loyal to either side; he is out to do the > > best for himself. It may not be as complicated as wanting to be > > the next dark lord. It could just be that he turns his coat, > > depending on which side he believes to be the most powerful at > > the time, and or the one that can give him the most at the time. > > > >>vmonte: > I agree with both of you. OFH Snape has always seemed (to me > anyway) the best way to make sense of Snape's character. The Order > and the DEs seem to have him pegged as either or, but I think that > the confusion completely stems from the fact that Snape is not > easily pegged. Both sides are looking at him in the wrong way. Betsy Hp: There are a few rather large plot holes that speak against OFH!Snape to my mind. The first (and biggest one, IMO) is that Snape joined the Order at the very moment when Voldemort's power was at its zenith. He joined the Order *before* Voldemort went off to his fateful meeting with baby Harry. And, as per Lupin, the Death Eaters were definitely winning at that time. How does that fit in with Snape merely going with the winners? Second, why on earth does Snape save Dumbledore's life at the beginning of HBP? He knows Voldemort wants Dumbledore dead. Dumbledore was foolish enough and weak enough to get mortally wounded, and even with Snape's help is still suffering from a pretty serious looking affliction. If Snape really was working under a "go with the strong" morality, why would he stick around once Dumbledore gave him an opportunity to get out? Especially if you figure that if Dumbledore died from his wound, Snape could have maintained his position as Potion's Master (or DADA Professor). A position from which he could recruit as many young Death Eaters as he wished and have easy access to a Harry Potter no longer under Dumbledore's protection. Third, if as you postulate, Alla, Snape decided to flip to Voldemort's side after the end of PoA, why does he leave Vapor!Mort languishing in Europe? Why does he leave Peter to collect all the glory of being devoted enough to search Voldemort out, and himself in a rather precarious position requiring some mighty fast tap-dancing once Voldemort reveals himself returned to his little flock at the end of GoF? And finally, why does a Snape who is so willing and able to flip sides at a moment's notice, tie himself down with the Unbreakable Vow? I'm not sure where the Vow fits into an OFH! read on Snape's character. To my mind (for what it's worth ) the most straightforward read of Snape's character, the one with the least plot holes, is DDM!Snape. Betsy Hp From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 02:24:48 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 02:24:48 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140779 > vmonte: > No, I don't think that they would have mentioned that Snape was a > bully to Harry. JKR has a way of never letting her characters ask > questions when she doesn't want her readers to have the information > yet. But based on the bully that Snape is now, and the fact that he > belonged to a club of bullys while he was a DE, I'm sure that he was > one as a teenager too. zgirnius: Well, in this case she did let Harry ask the question. But I suppose she might have prevented Lupin or Sirius from giving an optimal answer... I have trouble determining Snape was a bully as a teenager based on his decision to join the Death Eaters, because I can see other reasons besides a desire to bully others that might inspire one to join. Snape seems to have had an intellectual interest in the Dark Arts from childhood, which might in itself tempt him to join a powerful Dark wizard. I also don't think he had close ties to students in his year (since noone but Lily seems to have been doing anything but enjoying the show in that Pensieve scene) and he also probably had a problematic family life (the Pensieve memory of the man yelling at the "cowering" woman). So he might also have joined any group that gave him a feeling of importance and belonging. Finally, depending on how he was raised, he might have been indoctrinated into the anti-Muggle-born ideology as a child. (Particularly if he had a bad relationship with his Muggle father and more sympathetic maternal relatives with anti-Muggle views.) Since we don't know why he joined them, it seems a stretch to then retroactivelty decide he must have always been a bully because he was once a DE. I also have some difficulty with the whole business of Snape having fit nicely into a Slytherin gang of nascent Death Eaters at Hogwarts. That he was involved with them in some way is canon, yes, but in what way? As a leader? A valued member? Or a mere hanger-on about the fringes, tolerated only for his knowledge of unusual and original hexes? The other gang members we know about (Malfoy, Bella, etc.) would mostly have been older, and also purebloods. I would think they *knew* Snape was not, since he has his father's (Muggle) last name. vmonte: > I'm starting to think that Snape had something to do with recruiting > Regulus into that nasty group of kids that later turned out to become > DEs. If true, I wouldn't blame Sirius for loathing Snape forever. Even > if ultimately it was Regulus's fault for joining in the first place. > > Vivian zgirnius: Anything is possible, of course, since we know very little about how Regulus became a Death Eater. Sirius attributes it to the fact that his brother always shared the traditional Black family values. But then Slytherin House around that time also included both Bella and Cissy Black, Regulus' cousins. Since (according to Sirius) Regulus was always his parents' favorite and shared their views, he was likely quite close to these very "acceptable" cousins and their friends. This seems a more likely a route for Regulus' recruitment. Even if Snape did befriend and recruit the young Regulus, though, it seems to me that you are putting the cart before the horse. Sirius and Lupin tell Harry that James and Snape were enemies from day one. So Sirius would *already* have been an "enemy" of Snape before Regulus came ont he scene at all. Also, Sirius does not in talking to Harry express much regret about his brother's fate. It would seem that from an early age he rejected his family's pureblood ideology and ties to Dark magic, and despised Regulus for not doing likewise. From juli17 at aol.com Tue Sep 27 02:33:31 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:33:31 EDT Subject: Knowing your Latin Message-ID: <76.5c78d4ea.306a097b@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140780 Geoff wrote: Just as an afterthought, how did Snape manage to emerge from the woodwork so quickly to deal with Malfoy's injuries? He was through the door within seconds of the spell being cast. Julie says: Wherever goeth Harry to misbehave, there appeareth Snape. In other words, is Snape ever very far away when Harry gets into some sort of mischief or trouble? Though in this case I do think Snape might have been keeping close to Draco rather than Harry, as he still hadn't been able to figure out how Draco was planning to carry out his mission for Voldemort. Whichever reason Snape was nearby, it was certainly fortunate for Harry. Harry's not one to ponder what-might-have-beens, and he's certainly not predisposed to look at anything Snape does in a positive light (with good reason), but this is another instance where Snape saved Harry's life, IMO. Not in a factual sense, but where would Harry have been carrying the guilt of having killed someone (and the ripped soul that apparently goes with it), no matter that it was essentially an accident? (And it wasn't self-defense, as Draco wasn't trying to kill Harry; it was just stupidity.) Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sherriola at earthlink.net Tue Sep 27 02:38:44 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:38:44 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: OFH! Snape again. WAS: Straightforward readings? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00aa01c5c30c$95856b60$cf21f204@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 140781 And finally, why does a Snape who is so willing and able to flip sides at a moment's notice, tie himself down with the Unbreakable Vow? I'm not sure where the Vow fits into an OFH! read on Snape's character. To my mind (for what it's worth ) the most straightforward read of Snape's character, the one with the least plot holes, is DDM!Snape. Betsy Hp Sherry now: I admit I haven't thought my ideas on OFH Snape out to their fullest yet, so I can't give you a good answer for all your questions. But personally, to my mind, the unbreakable vow is the greatest evidence against DDM Snape. Either that, or it's evidence of damn fool Snape, which would negate his supposed intelligence and brilliance as a spy. As someone pointed out weeks ago, if he knew the elements of the vow and is supposedly DDM, why on earth did he go through with it? I don't buy to save Draco or anything else. It was just stupid to do it, if he didn't know what Draco's task would be, as he implied he did. Any good lawyer would say never ask a question if you don't know what the answer is, or you might open the door to something you didn't want to come out! Same with that vow. If Snape didn't know what Draco's assignment was, then he was an idiot to have agreed to it. If he did know, then he is no more DDM than my dog is! Or, ok, to keep it in the Potter world, if he knew Draco's task, then he is no more DDM than Grayback. So, to my mind, the most straight forward reading of the unbreakable vow fiasco is that Snape is either a fool or evil. Sherry From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 02:46:27 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 02:46:27 -0000 Subject: Bullying and Snape/ Snape and Regulus/OFH!Snape (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140782 > zgirnius: >> If there were some excellent reasons for James to dislike Snape, > wouldn't it have made sense to bring it up here? But no, the reasons > they give boil down to, James and Sirius were young and arrogant... > > > vmonte: > No, I don't think that they would have mentioned that Snape was a > bully to Harry. JKR has a way of never letting her characters ask > questions when she doesn't want her readers to have the information > yet. But based on the bully that Snape is now, and the fact that he > belonged to a club of bullys while he was a DE, I'm sure that he was > one as a teenager too. Alla: I completely agree with you, Vivian that JKR would not have told us for plot related reasons that Snape was a bully too, even if he was. But she already dropped some hints in OOP and MUCH more heavier hints in HBP, IMO about Young!Snape being a bully too. (I am saying Young Snape, because TO ME the question whether Snape is a bully now has a very clear answer) Young Snape is a racist, that is quite clear, right? I am not arguing whether he is one now, but he definitely WAS one. Granted, other than throwing a little racial slur at Lily, Snape looks sympathetic in Pensieve scene, while James and Sirius definitely not. But I absolutely reserved my judgment on the true nature of the relationship between Marauders and Snape based on ONE flashback and incomplete at that. I actually still am reserving my judgment, but I think JKR already started to turn the tables quite nicely at Snape. And I am not even talking Snape of these days, I am only talking about teenager Snape. So, young Snape goes around inventing Levicorpus, Sectusemptra and probably other not very nice spells. According to Lupin "Levicorpus" at some point had been used by half of Hogwarts ( paraphrase) While I am not sure whther this spell can be definitely classified as dark, it definitely can be used with unpleasant consequences for the victim. And we all saw what Sectusemptra can do. I think it is a reasonable assumption to make that some Hogwarts students also learned Sectusemptra (probably from seeing Snape use it?) I am wondering if Hogwarts students knew who was inventing these spells, is that such a wonder that Snape was not universally liked? Vmonte: > I'm starting to think that Snape had something to do with recruiting > Regulus into that nasty group of kids that later turned out to become > DEs. If true, I wouldn't blame Sirius for loathing Snape forever. Even > if ultimately it was Regulus's fault for joining in the first place. > Alla: Oh, this is one of the possible reasons, Vivian, I agree, but here is what I am speculating. We will eventually learn that either for that reason or another one what really took place in Pensieve scene was not just bullying, but also some sort of revenge - for something that took place earlier. Maybe for something which Snape did together with his pals from Slytherin gang. I think that Sirius' " Malfoy lapdog" will come back with the deeper meaning than just Sirius' taunt in OOP. After all, we saw in HBP how far Snape is willing to go for Malfoy family. > Potioncat: > Now, let's compare Regulus and Severus. I get the feeling that you feel > sorry for ickle Reggie. Some big bad DE recruited him; he came in, > making his Moma proud; then found out what it was all about; changed > his mind; and was killed. OK, I feel for him too. Alla: Well, yes, that is a pretty accurate factual description of what happened to Regulus, I agree. I pitied him prior to HBP, but not much, really. But now when it is confirmed who RAB is we know that Regulus did more than that. He openly defied Voldemort, knowing that he is going to die. He behaved contrary to Slytherin nature. You know, I actually respect Regulus now. I don't think that we can now be hundred percent sure that Snape ever behaved contrary to Slytherin nature. I mean, it is a possibility of course, but TO ME, not a fact. Yes, I remember Dumbledore's "at great risk to himself", but I am not sure if Albus got it right after all. Potioncat: > I feel sorry for ickle Sevvie. Some big bad DE recruited him; he came > in; then found out what it was all about and who was going to get hurt > so changed his mind; and began working against the DEs. Alla: Well, if THIS is indeed what happened, then I will feel sorry for him too. ;) Potioncat: > I'll accept your disagreement if you believe Snape is either ESE or > OFH. But we cannot really know what motivated Regulus either. > Personally, I think cousins Bella, Narcissa or Lucius are as likely a > source of recruitment as Severus. Alla: Sure, we don't know for sure what motivated Regulus to join. It seems to me that while cousins Bella, Narcissa and Lucius ARE likely source of recruitment, they are even far apart in age from Regulus than Severus was and are less likely to pay any attention to him. I think it is interesting that they all are members of the Slytherin gang. I just speculate about it of course, but I think it is possible that they recruited Severus and then Severus recruited Regulus. Just speculating here of course. Betsy HP > Third, if as you postulate, Alla, Snape decided to flip to > Voldemort's side after the end of PoA, why does he leave Vapor! Mort > languishing in Europe? Why does he leave Peter to collect all the > glory of being devoted enough to search Voldemort out, and himself in > a rather precarious position requiring some mighty fast tap- dancing > once Voldemort reveals himself returned to his little flock at the > end of GoF? Alla: My post is getting too long, so I will only answer this part of yours and if nobody answers, I may answer tomorrow. I was not being clear, sorry. I don't think that Snape FULLY decides to flip Voldemort's side in PoA. If Snape is OFH, I believe that PoA, or more like end of PoA was his STARTING point of resentment of Dumbledore. So, I don't think he is that concerned with going to look for Voldemort quite yet. I think he still may have been doing stuff for Dumbledore in GoF, then delivering equally important information to both sides in OOP ( like doing stuff for the Order and delivering information which got Sirius killed and you know, Emellyne Vance). I think Snape may have CHOSE in HBP, or maybe he still did not truly chosen and just concerned with staying alive. Betsy Hp: > To my mind (for what it's worth ) the most straightforward read of > Snape's character, the one with the least plot holes, is DDM!Snape. > Alla: I can see several Snapes, so to speak. Evil Snape, who is Voldemort servant, OFH!Snape who just wants to live, Sort of good!Snape who genunely thought that he has no other choice but to kill Dumbledore in order to help good guys, because he feels that he is very valuable to good guys and he has to stay alive to that. But I don't think that I ever be able to see the same sort of DDM! Snape you see - because in my reading, even if Snape is good, he had to realise that even if he thought that he had no other choice, but to kill Dumbledore, there is always a choice, even if this choice means Snape being dead. What I am trying to say is that I absolutely do not see DDM!Snape who will be praised at the end for killing Dumbledore on Dumbledore's orders or something like that. In my mind, if Snape is good, he will be VERY remorseful for what he had done, even if Dumbledore's death will have an unexpected consequence of helping the Light. > > Sherry now: > Same with that vow. If Snape didn't know what > Draco's assignment was, then he was an idiot to have agreed to it. If he > did know, then he is no more DDM than my dog is! > So, to my mind, the most straight forward reading of the unbreakable vow > fiasco is that Snape is either a fool or evil. Alla: OK, at the end of my very LONG post I think I am allowed to say YES, Sherry, me too, me too, me too. :-) If Snape is a good guy( he does not know the task), he is the complete fool for agreeing to give the Voldemort" blank check" with his signature on it ( Love that expression of Dan's) and if he knows the task, then he is ... well, then he is signing a contract for a murder, IMO. Just my opinion of course, Alla From juli17 at aol.com Tue Sep 27 02:46:49 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:46:49 EDT Subject: Dumbledore's trust in Tom Riddle and Snape Message-ID: <81.30e16f80.306a0c99@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140783 Alla: I really love Hickengruendler's posts and I read that one. I disagree with it, because I think that in case of Tom Riddle that is EXACTLY what Dumbledore did - relied on blind faith, even if he disagrees with it. If this is not a sign of blind faith, I don't know what is. What USE is it for anybody else if Dumbledore does not inform anybody that young Riddle already was quite creepy individual at eleven? RM: I don't think this is so much a show of blind faith, (after all Dumbledore didn't say that he believed that Riddle was had turned over a new leaf), so much as a desire on his part not to prejudice things so that Riddle wouldn't have a chance to turn over a new leaf. If he had told everybody, " look, he's a creepy kid but he may grow out of it" how much chance would he have at a new start? just my $.02 Julie now: I agree this isn't blind faith. The difference with Tom Riddle is that he was still a child who'd committed no known serious crimes. Dumbledore had to give him a chance. Tom himself noted that Dumbledore always kept a close eye on him, so Dumbledore never fully trusted Tom, but he could hardly throw him in Azkaban as a child because of what he *might* do someday. As for Snape, he came to Dumbledore as an adult with a list of crimes he'd committed. He wasn't hiding it, and if Dumbledore *had* suspicions, he certainly had no reason to dismiss or ignore them. But from all we've been told, Dumbledore believed Snape was sincere (though I'm sure there's more reason for that belief than Snape's remorse over revealing the prophecy to Voldemort). There is no evidence of any niggling doubt in his head about Snape as he had about Tom. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Sep 27 02:53:44 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 02:53:44 -0000 Subject: Wizard psychology--trying to crack the code (Re: Bullying ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140784 > Boca now: > This view on bullying is very convincing to me but still I'd like > to make some objections to some of the examples used, or rather, > try and refine the argument. Jen: Thanks for taking time to reply, Boca. Your thoughts did help me refine my ideas. First, to back up and set the stage for my previous post: I've been trying to figure out how JKR views psychological harm in the WW-- what premise did she start with when she created the world? Since she occasionally uses Muggle words to describe situations, I initially thought she was saying the WW operated similar to the RW. For example: The Longbottoms were called 'insane' and Ron told Harry even in the WW it's not normal to hear voices. But then we found out while the words were similar to Muggle psychology, in both cases the primary afflictions were magical. There were other examples which appeared similar to the RW on the surface, but grew fuzzy underneath. In OOTP Sirius appeared to have symptoms of depression, but he was also subjected to the Dementors for a number of years and never received healing at St. Mungos. Since there don't seem to be psychological diagnoses in the WW, his ailment would probably be classified at St. Mungos as long-term dementor exposure. Another example was Harry after the graveyard. Listees speculated he was experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder in the beginning of OOTP, but the truth is there's no such thing in the WW. He was having symptoms of a psychological disorder, but then we also find out Voldemort was invading his mind. What exactly was going on with him? There are no psychiatrists/counselors and no Diagnostic and Statistic Manual to classify disorders. Instead, people with severe magical injuries, whether emotional or physical, are treated at St. Mungos. Others who exhibit symptoms might be helped by the use of potions, like Hannah Abbott receiving the Draught of Peace and Harry the sleeping potion. Last thought: The state of the soul is very important in the WW. There were clues to this in POA, when the Dementor's Kiss was described as the worst possible punishment, but not until HBP did Rowling give us specifics. HBP seemed to say *soul* damage from exposure to Dark arts is even more debilitating than physical or psychological damage, because magical people are less resilient in that area. Injury to the soul via dark magic is pernicious and may even be irreversible, from the little we know. > Boca: I think this view is an excellent explanation for the way > Harry is able to handle bullying, and I also follow Voldemort > being just the contrary due to circumstances in his early life > (though we're getting away from the topic of bullying here). But > Riddle suspecting Dumbledore to want to take him to a padded cell - > well, that was just plain realism, wasn't it? Riddle was at that > point already so twisted that the problem actually DID "reside > inside himself on some level". Jen: I'm still unsure why JKR presented 11-year old Riddle the way she did. I *think* your reading may be exactly right, that Riddle was a basic sociopath-in-the-making and we're not supposed to read too deeply into his psychological make-up. But then she made that confusing (to me) comment in the TLC/MN interview: MA: Oh, here's one [from our forums] that I've really got to ask you. Has Snape ever been loved by anyone? JKR: Yes, he has, which in some ways makes him more culpable even than Voldemort, who never has. Jen: Never loved. We found out 'love magic' actually exists and Voldemort rejected it in favor of dark magic--no surprise there! I'm not sure how a person could choose to believe in the power of love magic if he's never been loved, and JKR seems to be agreeing with this. So why present him that way? It makes a circular argument-- he's done heinous things by his own choice, yet he was never loved, so he's not as culpable, yet he still did heinous things....? Back to the bullying issue with Boca: > However, if we take directing things outward "by hurting others to > gain power/control over a situation [we have]no control over" > as measure or evidence for this phenomenon of not being able to > externalize the enemy, than nobody, not even Harry, seems to be > able to do that. We have seen nearly everybody, in the WW as well > as in the real world, vent their anger on someone or pull just the > right strings they know will hurt somebody deeply when they feel > they are in danger of getting overridden in an argument. Jen: You're right I was talking about something other than bullying with Riddle, so he wasn't the best character to throw in the mix. I thought of him because he didn't have clarity about his situation. He experienced no overt abuse or bullying, but he also didn't understand why his mother died & why he was left in an orphanage rather than with relatives. He thought his father might come for him, but that never materialized. On top of this confusion he started performing spontaneous magic and suddenly realized he felt powerful and 'special' for the first time in his life. Boca: > Anybody who says now that to vent your anger on someone doesn't > quite play in the same league as young Riddle's torturing other > kids by hanging their pets from the rafters (or the things he did > later as Voldie): You're absolutely right. So I think we have to > be careful not to paint in black and white. The world isn't split > into people who are able to externalize the enemy and others who > aren't. Like I said, even Harry, who has this ability to a great > extent, doesn't walk around in a Dalai-Lama-like mood all the > time, chanting "I am o.k., you are o.k., everybody's o.k.". Even > Harry thinks there might be something wrong with *him*, especially > in CoS when he discovers that "Voldemort put a bit of himself in > me". Jen: Oh, I don't think this ability actually keeps people from experiencing any and all harm, it's more that if a person can pinpoint the problem as being outside, then he/she isn't so likely to suffer feeling victimized. And I'll add that the magical world is slightly different because magical children are sometimes able to save themselves in ways Muggle children cannot. Like Harry being able to escape Dudley's gang by flying to the rooftop; He wasn't in control of his magical powers but they still helped him out of a jam several times. Someone like Merope was more victimized by her father's bullying, losing most of her magical abilities. > Boca: Do you mean to say that no harm was done to Snape and that > that was because he was able to see that it was James and Sirius' > fault they bullied him and not his own? Then I would like to > disagree. Actually, I think that a lot of harm was done to Snape, > and that the way he treats Neville and the Trio (and probably, I > think, a few select students in every class he teaches) is the > direct expression of that. Now - trying not to think black/white - > this doesn't mean he was not able to realize it was James and > Sirius' fault. There are thousands of different ways of assigning > blame, and it is all too easily split up between different people > (which is also very lucky because most situations are too complex > to assign blame to just one person/one word they said/one thing > they did). Jen: I didn't mean no harm was done to Snape. He's actually a very difficult one to analyze because we don't know how damaging it is to sink into dark magic and then try to return to the other side. He's the only person we think has done that, and is still alive to tell about it! So I see him being damaged by both experiences, but as to what degree from each one--no clue. Jen From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 02:55:50 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 02:55:50 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140785 zgirnius: I have trouble determining Snape was a bully as a teenager based on his decision to join the Death Eaters, because I can see other reasons besides a desire to bully others that might inspire one to join. Snape seems to have had an intellectual interest in the Dark Arts from childhood, which might in itself tempt him to join a powerful Dark wizard. vmonte: Really? You don't think that one of the perks of becoming a Death Eater includes using "said' dark arts against other people? Maybe even testing out some of those HBP curses? So you think that Snape joined the DEs for purely scientific reasons?--research related reasons? Man, that sounds even scarier than what I imagined. (I'm having visions of Nazi-like torture labs--SICK!) zgirnius:I don't think he had close ties to students in his year (since noone but Lily seems to have been doing anything but enjoying the show in that Pensieve scene) and he also probably had a problematic family life (the Pensieve memory of the man yelling at the "cowering" woman). So he might also have joined any group that gave him a feeling of importance and belonging. Finally, depending on how he was raised, he might have been indoctrinated into the anti-Muggle-born ideology as a child. (Particularly if he had a bad relationship with his Muggle father and more sympathetic maternal relatives with anti-Muggle views.) Since we don't know why he joined them, it seems a stretch to then retroactivelty decide he must have always been a bully because he was once a DE. vmonte: If joining a group of murdering thugs is the way that Snape finds comfort for his bad childhood then I have no compassion for him at all. zgirnius: I also have some difficulty with the whole business of Snape having fit nicely into a Slytherin gang of nascent Death Eaters at Hogwarts. That he was involved with them in some way is canon, yes, but in what way? As a leader? A valued member? Or a mere hanger-on about the fringes, tolerated only for his knowledge of unusual and original hexes? The other gang members we know about (Malfoy, Bella, etc.) would mostly have been older, and also purebloods. I would think they *knew* Snape was not, since he has his father's (Muggle) last name. vmonte: What? Come on, we've been told in canon that he was in the gang and that he later became a DE. Let's not beat around the bush, ok? Vivian From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 02:59:10 2005 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 02:59:10 -0000 Subject: 7 parts of V's Souls/ 7Books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140786 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "crypticamoeba" wrote: > What if being the maniacal type of genius she is, JKR decided way > back to infuse her books throughout with this idea of 7 being a > magical number (canon: HBP). Given that there are 7 divided parts > to voldemorts soul (canon: HBP). What if she decided to introduce > us to one part per book. They may be small and unobtrusive but > there. > > Book 1: > Book 2: Voldemort's Diary (Destroyed) > Book 3: > Book 4: Naghini (sp?) > Book 5: Locket in #12 (theory based on canon locket in OotP and RAB > being Rudolfus A Black OotP and HBP) > Book 6: Marvolo's Ring > Book 7: > > Now to make this theory work > Hufflepuff's Cup must be present in book 1 or book 3 -- But not book > 7 cause then it would have been introdused in book 6 > Voldemort's unbodied soul could be book 1 when introduced or book 7 > as it is not a horcurx but the soul itself > item of GG or RR would be in book 3 or 7 > > concerning Hufflepuff's Cup we came up with the House Cup and > Quidditch Cup both as possibilities i do not think wither are truly > possible. As V intended the Diary to reside at Hogwart's (prob. the > Chamber) and 2 Horcri in the same location seems unsafe and > Harry/Dumbledore would have recognized it. > > > Crypticamoeba Doddie here: I believe you make an excellent point so here are my guesses at horcruxes book 1: Mirror of erised Harry didn't destroy it..but knows how to conquer it.. book 2: Definitely the diary Book 3: I dunno...maybe forshadowing of peter pettigrews new hand...may also be forshadowing of buckbeak....or perhaps something to do with the MOM. book four: 'Goblet of Fire'....if anything....it would definitely be the Hufflepuff artifact!!!!!! What if the "cup" was in fact the "goblet"?!?!?!? Hence, the cedric connection to the tri-wiz. tourn.! Hence the confundus charm so easily applied...and if a horcrux...may not have even been necessary to make a portkey from it. Book Five: Definitely the locket... Book six: Olivander's wand in the window...olivander went missing for one reason or another. Trelawneys statements...if not GG's sword..then another sword of sorts..makes sense Book seven: Harry the unintentional horcrux.... I believe that voldemort is thwarted time and time again because in his arrogance he created more than seven horcruxes.. So both Harry and Nagini are Horcruxes! Hence, he is not all powerful due to the fact that he has eight rather than seven horcruxes!(hence harry can escape him and he had to go through such great lengths to come back)It makes absolute sense that moldy Voldy would make this sort of mistake...he continues to make them time and time again. Hence the gleam in DD's eye at the end of GOF...I'm suppositioning that with that blood and after Harry's possession in OOP that Horcrux has already been utilized! LOL--jokes on voldy! So after than Dd gives Harry lessons. (I'm hoping Ron or Hermione will make this connection.) So book seven is harry's discoveries of this.... Also, I think that Snape believes Harry is a horcrux....If he did not...he would have destroyed Harry at the end of book six...(Snape is not as stupid as Lucious was with the diary.....What if his (Snape's) goal was to suppress harry's spirit as much as possible so that voldy spirit was kept alive??? (Via hate/discontent/dislike)....what if voldy told snape he'd visit the longbottoms first...but just sent bella...possibilities abound! Snape would never attempt to destroy harry in light of the portion of the prophecy he declares he's heard... I loathe to think that Snape may have an anti-horcrux potion... (Which I believe is already useless)...since the soul piece in harry left with voldemort's possession of him in the mOM. It normally wouldn't have happened but due to the blook sacrifice in GOF; I think that is what happened.) I think DD thinks so too; hence, the private lessons in HBP! Doddie, who has thought of this a great deal..and has oft wondered if it was the horcrux in the mirror of erised that drew harry to it, yet it was the vision of his family(love) that kept him there. It would be poignant for Harry to destroy the mirror while his family is there waving at him...blowing him kisses and the like! From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Sep 26 14:52:19 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:52:19 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's trust in Tom Riddle and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140787 > Alla: > > I really love Hickengruendler's posts and I read that one. I > disagree with it, because I think that in case of Tom Riddle that is > EXACTLY what Dumbledore did - relied on blind faith, even if he > disagrees with it. > > I mean, yes, Harry is asking Albus: > > "But you didn't really trust him, sir, didn't you? He told me ... > the Riddle who come out of that diary said, " Dumbledore never > seemed to like as much as other teachers did." > "Let us say that I did not take it for granted that he was > trustworthy," said Dumbledore." "I had ,as I have already indicated, > resolved to keep a close eye on him, and so I did. I cannot pretend > that I gleaned a great deal from my observations at first. ... > However, he had the sense never to try and charm me as he charmed so > many of my colleagues" - HBP, p.361. > > > So far, so good, right? Dumbledore observes young Riddle at school. > But let's back track a couple of paragraphs back. > > > "He seemed polite, quiet, and thirsty for knowledge. Nearly all were > most favorably impressed by him" > "Didn't you tell them, sir, what he'd been like when you met him at > the orphanage?" asked Harry - p.361. > > Basically, I interpret Harry's question as " Did you DO something > about your suspicions, Sir?" > > What is Dumbledore's answer? > > "No, I did not. Though he had shown no hint of remorse, it was > possible that he felt sorry for how he had behaved before and was > resolved to turn over a fresh leaf. I chose to give him that > chance" - p.361. > > If this is not a sign of blind faith, I don't know what is. What USE > is it for anybody else if Dumbledore does not inform anybody that > young Riddle already was quite creepy individual at eleven? > > Notice, Dumbledore does not even say that Riddle SHOWED remorse for > how he behaved. Dumbledore says it is POSSIBLE that he showed > remorse and still he decides to bring him to Hogwarts. > > What USE it is for anybody else if Dumbledore was not charmed by > young Riddle? Everybody else was and they did not know to be wary of > Tom, because Dumbledore did not tell them. > > Hmmm, maybe Slugghorn would have been more careful and would not > admitted him to his little club. Maybe then Tom would have never > learned that Horcruxes creation is a definite possibility? > > Maybe if Dumbledore told Slugghorn to inform his students to be > careful of Tom, he would have never be able to form his little gang? > > > I see loads of possible parallels with how Dumbledore dealt with > Snape, although of course mostly speculative. > > > Maybe Dumbledore thought that it was POSSIBLE that Snape showed > remorse for what he did, but he really did not and Dumbledore still > chose to give him that chance. > > Maybe Dumbledore should have informed at least members of OOP and > tell Harry about why he trusts Snape? > > I think it is possible that Dumbledore either did not exercised > caution with Snape, or only THOUGHT that he exercised caution as he > did with Riddle,when he decided to observe both men. > > > I think it is a huge possibility that in both instances his powers > of observation sadly failed him. SisterMagpie: I would say, though, that there are some important distinctions between these two situations. First, Tom Riddle is a child who is just being given a chance to enter a new situation. DD has chosen to let him turn over a new leaf. If DD started telling people he got a weird vibe from this Riddle kid, that he's used his magic to have power over others before then yes, Slughorn might not have said anything about Horcruxes or even allowed Tom into the Slug Club, but it's also likely the teachers would be biased against him at 11 years old. Tom's childhood was spent in an orphanage, which is a completely unloving environment. He thought he was crazy, didn't know he was a wizard. I can completely see DD feeling that it would not be fair to bring him to a new situation, a whole new life, and prejudice teachers against him by saying that he had a problem with him--this is probably a chance given to all kids who come to Hogwarts. (In fact, arriving at Hogwarts with a reputation is often portrayed as a difficult thing--Ron's supposed to be a Weasley, Harry's thought to be his father, Neville's stuck with his father's wand.) Given the fact that Tom on the surface was not breaking rules that DD could see, was not bullying other students or killing rabbits, I think DD had good reason to think he should give young Tom a chance. Like sealing his juvenile records. Actually, if I were going to draw a parallel here I might connect it to young Lupin who was also dangerous when he came to the school. If DD shared the fact that Remus was a werewolf Snape would possibly not have gone into the Shrieking Shack, but DD kept Remus' secret presumably at least in part to make sure there was no prejudice against him. Regardless, the problem here is not that DD saw good in people that wasn't there, since he himself does not see good in Tom. It's an act of faith to give Tom a chance despite his misgivings, but when Snape is talking to Bellatrix I think he paints DD as more of a sucker. Young Snape no doubt got the same chance as Tom when he came to Hogwarts, but when he comes back later he's an adult and can no longer just require the benefit of the doubt. Look, for instance, at the way DD warns Harry about Slughorn when they meet. He does let Harry have his own first impression of Slughorn, but also shares his own personal thoughts on the man. I don't know if I've ever heard DD analyze a child's personality the way he does with adults (the closest I can think is his implication that the Dursleys have ruined Dudley, which is made when Dudley is almost 17, and is rather out of the ordinary). In Snape's case, there's two aspects at work that are different from Tom's, imo. The first is why DD trusted Snape (did he really just have to see the good in everyone) and the second is why he expected other people to trust Snape. Both of these are not quite like they were with Tom. First, DD never did completely trust Riddle--he may not have shared his doubts but he didn't trust him himself. With Snape it appears he did trust him himself, which suggests to me he had some reason to trust him (he doesn't ever consider letting Tom Riddle teach at Hogwarts). Personally I think it went beyond Snape just showing remorse that was fake, especially since that very question seems to be brought up and not answered in HBP. Isn't there a point where DD seems like he's going to say something to Harry but doesn't? Harry leaps to the conclusion that it was Snape's tale of remorse after the Prophecy, and Snape himself says he spun a tale of remorse, but the fact that DD does not confirm this story seems like important information intentionally witheld from us. It suggests, to me, that there was an actual reason DD wasn't sharing. And that's the second aspect--why does DD expect other people to trust Snape? He doesn't share his reasons for trusting a known criminal, so nobody but him really has good reason to trust him. This is the opposite of what was going on with Riddle. There DD let people come to their own conclusions, even if he did not agree with them. Here he *did* speak up, saying that he knew other people didn't agree, but they should adopt his view of Snape as their own without proof. This is kind of a rare thing for DD--usually he doesn't interfere and lets people come to their own conclusions. In fact, he does a similar thing with Voldemort in the other direction, telling Professor Dippet he's not comfortable with Tom Riddle being a professor at Hogwarts but--again--he doesn't tell him why. He never interfered to defend Riddle against bad impressions others had as he does with Snape. So for me DD's problem just doesn't seem to be about having to see the good in people. That, to me, reads like something that DEs would want to hear or think. It's pretty common for the bad guys to think that way, to assume that "good" means being a sucker, that any good seen in someone is just wishful thinking. Evil lacks imagination. No, DD's problem as illustrated here is more, imo, that he trusts too much in his own powers and cleverness. He sees the truth of things to a greater extent than most, but thinks he can just take care of things himself and nobody else needs to be informed. For instance, he made a big mistake with Sirius thinking it would not be a disaster to leave him at Grimmauld Place, but his mistake was not in thinking Sirius was a good guy. Snape could be the one person with whom he made this mistake, but as of now I don't really believe it. Perhaps an even better example is from HBP: DD should have listened to Harry about Draco, but the problem wasn't that DD was mistaken about the "good" in Draco--he knew Draco was trying to kill him and why, and was very accurate in guessing his mental state. He grasped the situation better than Harry in most ways. What he missed was that Draco had figured out a way to get DEs into Hogwarts. He trusted in his cleverness, not his trust in the good. That's more like his usual mistakes--he understands Sirius' hatred of Grimmauld Place, and Harry's love for and desire to protect Sirius. His mistake is in underestimating his ability to control the results of these feelings. I don't think it ever occurred to him teen!Harry could escape from Hogwarts and get to the MoM, just as it never occurred to him teen!Draco could get through defenses the greatest adult wizards could not. In the Draco situation, luckily, we may finally have broken through the second-hand trust, though. Throughout the year Dumbledore just kept telling Harry not to worry about Draco, that DD was taking care of it. At the end of HBP Harry knows the details and so can understand why DD had the view of Draco he does. Harry's feelings of pity for Draco at the end are not due to DD telling him that he pities Draco so Harry should too, it's because it was all played out in front of him. For the first time Harry attempted to observe someone more objectively--at first Harry was just trying to look for clues to Draco's plan, but as he watched he started to see things more from Draco's pov. He wound up coming up with an impression closer to Dumbledore's. -m From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Sep 27 03:09:00 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 03:09:00 -0000 Subject: OFH! Snape again. WAS: Straightforward readings? In-Reply-To: <00aa01c5c30c$95856b60$cf21f204@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140788 Sherry: > > I admit I haven't thought my ideas on OFH Snape out to their fullest yet, so > I can't give you a good answer for all your questions. But personally, to > my mind, the unbreakable vow is the greatest evidence against DDM Snape. > Either that, or it's evidence of damn fool Snape, which would negate his > supposed intelligence and brilliance as a spy. As someone pointed out weeks > ago, if he knew the elements of the vow and is supposedly DDM, why on earth > did he go through with it? I don't buy to save Draco or anything else. It > was just stupid to do it, if he didn't know what Draco's task would be, as > he implied he did. Any good lawyer would say never ask a question if you > don't know what the answer is, or you might open the door to something you > didn't want to come out! Same with that vow. If Snape didn't know what > Draco's assignment was, then he was an idiot to have agreed to it. If he > did know, then he is no more DDM than my dog is! Or, ok, to keep it in the > Potter world, if he knew Draco's task, then he is no more DDM than Grayback. > > > So, to my mind, the most straight forward reading of the unbreakable vow > fiasco is that Snape is either a fool or evil. Ceridwen: Maybe Snape should have consulted a lawyer. He was informed beforehand of two of the provisions, but not the third and most damning of them. But, a vow between supposed friends, and with the provisions stated beforehand, can't be too bad, unless one of the friends decides to ensure her son's absolute safety, or at least an out for him, and tosses in something that wasn't agreed to beforehand. I think, once in the process of the vow, he found it too awkward to back out. Yeah, Awkward!Snape? Oh, well, that's how it looked to me. I think Snape could be OFH and still be on the good side. He may just plain old want Voldemort defeated. The guy is abusive to his followers, and his stated aims aren't the same as his more obvious ones. He's misleading his followers, and I can see where someone who is OFH wouldn't care for that. Promises are empty in that situation. And IMO, an OFH person would want guarantees. DD, the Order, and the WW as it is, provides more than Voldemort would. Once the war is over and LV is vanquished, Snape could have left Hogwarts and done whatever it is he wanted to. Apparently, though the DA are discouraged, no one goes around picking people up just on studying them. But if LV wins, he would keep his followers behind him, since they constitute the greatest threat to him since they know him better than anyone else. Snape wouldn't have the chance to disappear into his own little world. Even if he wanted to study and be an ivory tower intellectual, he couldn't. His spying would probably be turned toward other groups who might pose a threat, even to spying on the other DEs. I'm not positive on how Snape will end up. I doubt ESE. But OFH and DDM seem more plausible. OFH and DDM could, temporarily, be the same things since they share the same goal of getting rid of Voldemort. And I think that's what Snape would like to see. Ceridwen. From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 03:57:05 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 03:57:05 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140789 Potioncat: We have Lily's statement that James was a bully. And Snape probably was too. They're tied in the bad boy department. Now, let's compare Regulus and Severus. I get the feeling that you feel sorry for ickle Reggie. Some big bad DE recruited him; he came in, making his Moma proud; then found out what it was all about; changed his mind; and was killed. OK, I feel for him too. I feel sorry for ickle Sevvie. Some big bad DE recruited him; he came in; then found out what it was all about and who was going to get hurt so changed his mind; and began working against the DEs. I'll accept your disagreement if you believe Snape is either ESE or OFH. But we cannot really know what motivated Regulus either. Personally, I think cousins Bella, Narcissa or Lucius are as likely a source of recruitment as Severus. vmonte: Ickle Reggie? LOL! No, I don't feel sorry for Regulus as a matter of fact. Ultimately, Regulus is responsible for his own actions, just like Snape is. It doesn't mean that Sirius shouldn't feel resentment towards Snape if he indeed was the one who recruited his younger brother. BTW, I wasn't talking about Regulus's motives in my previous post. Only ickle Snape's and ickle Sirius's motives. Vivian :) From stormyw2000 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 03:19:34 2005 From: stormyw2000 at yahoo.com (stormyw2000) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 03:19:34 -0000 Subject: 7 parts of V's Souls/ 7Books In-Reply-To: <03ac01c5c2a8$e85a8d70$6600a8c0@phil> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140790 > crypticamoeba wrote: > What JKR decided way back to infuse her books throughout > with this idea of 7 being a magical number (canon: HBP). Given > that there are 7 divided parts to Voldemort's soul (canon: HBP). > What if she decided to introduce us to one part per book. The Mirror of Erised could be one - I think Tom Riddle would have put one right under Dumbledore's nose... "stormyw2000" From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 06:54:47 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 06:54:47 -0000 Subject: Straightforward readings? (was Re: Truth vs. what meets Harry's eye ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140791 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > What OFH! Snape doesn't explain is why Snape should bother -- > he doesn't seem to be a thrill-seeker like James or Sirius, so why > should he undertake such a risky course, in which he can ultimately > rely neither on Dumbledore's protection nor Voldemort's? Because OFH! is less risky than complete commitment to one side or the other, for some understandings of risk. It means that should things go egg-shaped, there's always an out for Snape. Be completely on one side or the other, and you have to go down with the ship. > It's not as though spying is all he knows how to do. He's obviously > not after popularity, nor wealth, nor influence. If he's into the Dark > Arts so thoroughly, why park himself at Hogwarts, where there's no > opportunity to practice them? Wouldn't Durmstrang have suited him > better? Karkaroff's an old friend; surely he would have been welcome? You make emigration sound so easy and tempting, Pippin. :) [It's a lot on my mind lately, because I'm working in the 1920's-30's music history, where a huge question exactly is 'why did some people stay, why did some leave, and what did it do to them?' Everyone who emigrated paid a heavy price for it. Everyone who didn't did too.] Go away to a foreign school, they're speaking whatever language normally, uprooting from a fairly comfortable position...one that allows more insight than otherwise into the workings of things. I don't buy the idea that Snape is this impersonal detached figure who really doesn't want anything for himself. I think that he likes power, and he likes position and authority, so why disrupt his system and give all that up? -Nora should really go to sleep now, really... From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 07:05:53 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:05:53 -0000 Subject: OFH! Snape again. WAS: Straightforward readings? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140792 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > There are a few rather large plot holes that speak against OFH! > Snape to my mind. The first (and biggest one, IMO) is that Snape > joined the Order at the very moment when Voldemort's power was at > its zenith. He joined the Order *before* Voldemort went off to his > fateful meeting with baby Harry. And, as per Lupin, the Death > Eaters were definitely winning at that time. How does that fit in > with Snape merely going with the winners? Snape actually answers this one himself, if you believe him, in chapter 2: he's there on Voldemort's orders to be a spy within Dumbledore's ranks. This fits in perfectly to OFH!Snape. Voldemort sez "Go be my spy--we may be winning, but I know DD is up to something, and you have the perfect story to get an in," and Snape then has the opportunity to be a genuine double agent. I don't have a fixed point for when I think Snape necessarily flipped, but I think there was serious strain put on him from the moment he *went back* to Voldemort and had that personal contact. All of his actions from then on are fairly easily readable from the position of playing both sides, looking to see where and how the chips are falling on the table. He then gets himself somewhat trapped into the UV, which really disrupts his precarious yet balanced position. Now, I admit, this theory has a major weakness--it doesn't *explain* so much as it is content to label. However, it has the consequent of being remarkably straightforward. It requires no postulated fake AK curse or secret plotting (or last-minute silent communication) between Snape and Dumbledore. It is content to let Snape's overtly positive actions be overtly positive and his negative ones be negative, without an exculpatory apparatus put onto every nasty little (or not so little) action. It requires far less inference than DDM!Snape, for sure. I get the feeling that Faith likes it decently well, and Faith is batting at a far higher percentage than any of us are. I think people don't like it because it's thematically very different and rather harsh from where most of us (including myself) thought the character arc was going. Don't dismiss it out of hand. There's some powerful reads to get out from it that may well be validated. -Nora dozes off to the fugal finale... From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 09:50:51 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:50:51 -0000 Subject: Bullying and Snape/ Snape and Regulus/OFH!Snape (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140793 > Alla: > > I completely agree with you, Vivian that JKR would not have told us > for plot related reasons that Snape was a bully too, even if he was. > > But she already dropped some hints in OOP and MUCH more heavier > hints in HBP, IMO about Young!Snape being a bully too. (I am saying > Young Snape, because TO ME the question whether Snape is a bully > now has a very clear answer) > > Young Snape is a racist, that is quite clear, right? I am not > arguing whether he is one now, but he definitely WAS one. > Even is we take for granted that a prejudice against muggle-borns is racist in its nature (which I by no means agree with) I still don't understand what it has to do with bullying. One can be a bully without being a racist and a racist without being a bully. a_svirn From maliksthong at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 10:55:14 2005 From: maliksthong at yahoo.com (Chys Lattes) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:55:14 -0000 Subject: Massive Mythological Horcrux Hunt.. Really Quite Long. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140794 Bloody brilliant. But I was thinking that the 'bare hands' concept had to do with Quirrel and Harry (wasn't the blood on his hands his downfall? Well, it's similar.) And the blood protection from his mother, and DD's protection at the muggle's. And when I envisioned flesh eating horses, well there are some in the books aren't there? Thestrals. Chys From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Tue Sep 27 05:45:02 2005 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 05:45:02 -0000 Subject: Bullying and Snape/ Snape and Regulus/OFH!Snape (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140795 > Alla: > > I can see several Snapes, so to speak. Evil Snape, who is Voldemort > servant, OFH!Snape who just wants to live, Sort of good!Snape who > genunely thought that he has no other choice but to kill Dumbledore > in order to help good guys, because he feels that he is very > valuable to good guys and he has to stay alive to that. > > But I don't think that I ever be able to see the same sort of DDM! > Snape you see - because in my reading, even if Snape is good, he had > to realise that even if he thought that he had no other choice, but > to kill Dumbledore, there is always a choice, even if this choice > means Snape being dead. > > What I am trying to say is that I absolutely do not see DDM!Snape > who will be praised at the end for killing Dumbledore on > Dumbledore's orders or something like that. > In my mind, if Snape is good, he will be VERY remorseful for what > he had done, even if Dumbledore's death will have an unexpected > consequence of helping the Light. > > > > > > Sherry now: > > > > Same with that vow. If Snape didn't know what > > Draco's assignment was, then he was an idiot to have agreed to > it. If he > > did know, then he is no more DDM than my dog is! > > > So, to my mind, the most straight forward reading of the > unbreakable vow > > fiasco is that Snape is either a fool or evil. > > > Alla: > > OK, at the end of my very LONG post I think I am allowed to say YES, > Sherry, me too, me too, me too. :-) > > If Snape is a good guy( he does not know the task), he is the > complete fool for agreeing to give the Voldemort" blank check" with > his signature on it ( Love that expression of Dan's) and if he knows > the task, then he is ... well, then he is signing a contract for a > murder, IMO. I still think an overlooked possibility is Pawn!Snape. The argument that Voldemort would immediately kill spy!Snape has never rung true for me. When has Voldemort killed needlessly (virtually every murder he has committed has had a reason...with the exception of Myrtle...who was actually killed by a snake anyway)? Isn't it odd that Snape's name never once comes up in regards to what Voldemort is actually doing? Never was during the Horcrux lessons is he mentioned with regards to the information and even during OotP Lupin states the Order is working of Dumbledore's ideas. Seems like a pretty pathetic spy or a spy who is being fed information. None of the other DEs seem fazed that the Vanishing Cabinets are used to get into Hogwarts (indeed Fenrir Greyback must have known what he was checking on) so if Snape is such an amazing spy why does it come out of the blue? Snape was been shown to make foolish choices before: the Whomping Willow incident and his foolish little stunt in PoA (where he deludes himself into believing that he must save Harry Potter...and rushes in without sending for help...did he really think he could take Lupin and Black together?) stand out. Draco is given a mission that seems designed to drive his desperate mother to Snape, the only person that can help her son. Bellatrix is there, supposedly on the outs with Voldemort, who then serves as bonder. Peter is there...adding to Snape's unease or serving as a distraction. I believe that it would be incredibly easy for Voldemort to set up the situation in Spinner's End that leads to Snape being caught in the Unbreakable Vow at which point his loyalty or morality really go out the window. I think that Voldemort gave Snape enough rope to hang himself...just like he did to Harry in OotP (and CoS for that matter too). Voldemort has a record of using plans that rely heavily on people doing certain actions...CoS, GoF, and OotP make this point quite clearly. Voldemort lets Harry come to him, to find things out along the way, to do what he, Voldemort, wants, to accomplish the goals that he, Voldemort, wants. In the end Severus Snape could well be not DDM, OFH, or ESE but simply a man caught in the webs of so many plots by both Dumbledore and Voldemort that he hung himself. Let's hope he gets one real choice before the end. "quick_silver71" From zeavin91001 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 08:36:03 2005 From: zeavin91001 at yahoo.com (zeavin91001) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 08:36:03 -0000 Subject: I think I have Snape figured out Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140796 I have made a connection between Snape and Harry's eyes. It is my theory that Snape liked Lily...a lot. She was also gifted in Potions and maybe thought he had a chance. I don't think he has any remorse for James' death, but he has a lot for that of Lily. He may even have thought that with James out of the way he would have a shot. I also think that Voldemort had promised Snape that he would not harm Lily, maybe as a reward for the partial prophesy. But when she stood between he and Harry she became expendable. So along comes Harry with Lily's eyes. I think he used his hatred of James as a reason to harass Harry because every time he looked at Harry he saw Lily's eyes staring bck. Only, over time, those same eyes stared at him with loathing. Which is why Occlumency was a fiasco...it requires eye contact which must have been very painful to Snape - a reminder of what he did. It must have cut him to the quick. Snape will most likely to confess this to Harry in order to gain his trust because he is working against Voldemort. He hates him probably as much as Harry. I believe that this is one reason DD trusted Snape. I think the other is the Elixir of Life. Note: Flamel may be gone and the stone may be gone...but the KNOWLEDGE still existed as DD was one of the creators of the stone. I believe that Snape was pretty much keeping DD alive with the elixir, which may have run out. DD knew he was going to die. It was necessary to the plan to destroy Voldemort. That is my theory and I'm sticking to it. "zeavin91001" From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 27 12:39:58 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:39:58 -0000 Subject: Is Punishment the only recompense? (was Re: Straightforward readings?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140797 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bibphile" wrote: > > > > > Marianne: > > > enough that he has paid > > > > I've done massive snippage of Juli's comments to get to her > question. > > I'd be happy with Snape's genuine effort to atone with one > addition. > > I'd like to see him admit in actual, spoken sentences that he did > has > > done some bad things and is genuinely sorry. Hearing about his > > remorse second-hand from Dumbledore is not enough, IMO. Maybe > that's > > just me as a reader wanting to see the character in question show > the > > emotions and thoughts that others have attributed to him. But, > > without Snape actually telling/showing me himself, then I'd find > the > > result unsatisfying. > > bibphile: > I doubt that Snapw will ever verbally apologize. I believe in DDM > Snape but I think he himkself would find the words meaningless. I > think he believes that the only meaningful way to show his remorse > is through his actions. Talk is cheap. Marianne: And that is a major part of why I would find it very unsatisfying. Whether or not Snape would find words meaningless is immaterial. It's not about him doing as he sees fit, even if his actions are all for the good now. To me that smacks of letting Snape off the hook, in a sense, in that it allows him to atone in the way that he's most comfortable with or the way he feels is best. He's not acknowledging to the person or people whom his actions have hurt that he's sorry for what he's done to them. Talk, cheap or otherwise, was evidently fine for Snape when he was spinning his tale of remorse to try to worm his way back into DD's good graces. But, for me as a reader to buy Snape's tale, I want to hear it from his own lips. I want to see him look someone in the eye who has suffered as a result of his previous actions, like Harry, and hear him convince me he's sincere in his remorse. His actions, as brave as they may be, could simply then be put down to what any other good soldier would do in battling evil. They would not necessarily have anything to do with remorse. And, I don't think Snape finds words meaningless. He is one of the most eloquent characters in Potterverse. How powerful it would be to hear him use the same verbal grace to express his remorse. However, I'm inclined to agree with you that we won't hear it, not because Snape thinks actions speak louder than words. But, because I don't think Snape was remorseful to begin with. Marianne From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Sep 27 12:58:01 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:58:01 -0000 Subject: Wizard psychology--trying to crack the code (Re: Bullying ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140798 Jen: > There were other examples which appeared similar to the RW on the > surface, but grew fuzzy underneath. In OOTP Sirius appeared to have > symptoms of depression, but he was also subjected to the Dementors > for a number of years and never received healing at St. Mungos. > Since there don't seem to be psychological diagnoses in the WW, his > ailment would probably be classified at St. Mungos as long-term > dementor exposure. Another example was Harry after the graveyard. > Listees speculated he was experiencing post-traumatic stress > disorder in the beginning of OOTP, but the truth is there's no such > thing in the WW. He was having symptoms of a psychological disorder, > but then we also find out Voldemort was invading his mind. What > exactly was going on with him? > > There are no psychiatrists/counselors and no Diagnostic and > Statistic Manual to classify disorders. Instead, people with severe > magical injuries, whether emotional or physical, are treated at St. > Mungos. Others who exhibit symptoms might be helped by the use of > potions, like Hannah Abbott receiving the Draught of Peace and Harry > the sleeping potion. houyhnhnm: Could it be that Wizards are simply humans who never experienced the breakdown of the bicameral mind? Is their world only different from ours in the way they perceive it? From ken.fruit at gmail.com Tue Sep 27 13:18:14 2005 From: ken.fruit at gmail.com (Ken Fruit) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 08:18:14 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Book 7 Deaths In-Reply-To: <20050925171738.23147.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050925161629.73403.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> <20050925171738.23147.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <71beed6b05092706182bfcb01e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140799 laurie goudge wrote: ... I see it working out one of four ways: a) Lord V dies at the hands of Harry. Harry lives and has to deal with life after Lord V. b) BOTH Lord V AND Harry die in an epic battle and the wizarding world makes Harry sort of a maryter for all time. c) Lord V dies at the hand of someone else and Harry lives not having any hand in the death of Lord V d) Harry dies at the hand of Lord V who is then promptly offed by a third party. now I am rooting for choice a or b; but being very practical this is what I had come up with. Guru adds his favorite: Harry and Lord V dual. Lord V gets the upper had and throws a AK Harry's way. Once again in bounces off Harry, and kills LV. (Villians are so dumb, they never learn) This all happens after Harry and the gang have eliminated the remaining Horcruxium so this time LV is clearly and sincerely dead, and all without Harry doing any of the messy, nasty, evil killing thing. Oh, and Wormtail repays his debt to Harry by yelling "Harry!!! Look out! behind you!!!" just before he is vaporized. From laura_momiji at tin.it Tue Sep 27 14:37:14 2005 From: laura_momiji at tin.it (Momiji) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:37:14 +0200 Subject: Some questions (maybe previously done, sorry) In-Reply-To: <1127783391.3507.44012.m4@yahoogroups.com> References: <1127783391.3507.44012.m4@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140800 Thank you very much! Your answers really help me to clear many things :) I really appreciate your answers! Thank you! Laura -- "I... I've got a job to do.' 'Well, then, you must get on and do it, my dear boy,' said Dumbledore softly." from Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince From Sherry at PebTech.net Tue Sep 27 14:35:39 2005 From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:35:39 -0000 Subject: Snape and Regulus/OFH!Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140801 > Alla: > > Well, yes, that is a pretty accurate factual description of what > happened to Regulus, I agree. I pitied him prior to HBP, but not > much, really. > > But now when it is confirmed who RAB is we know that Regulus did > more than that. He openly defied Voldemort, knowing that he is going > to die. He behaved contrary to Slytherin nature. You know, I > actually respect Regulus now. It hasn't been confirmed in canon that RAB is/was Regulus Black. JKR said that Regulus "would be...a fine guess." (http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-2.htm) But she hasn't stated as a fact that RAB *DOES* stand for "Regulus A___ Black," and we are speculating that his middle initial was A. I agree that Regulus is a likely candidate for RAB, but I still suspect that he's a false lead precisely because he's such an obvious candidate. I foresee about two years of fertile speculation! Amontillada From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Sep 27 18:40:05 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 18:40:05 -0000 Subject: OFH! Snape again. WAS: Straightforward readings? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140802 Nora: > I don't have a fixed point for when I think Snape necessarily > flipped, but I think there was serious strain put on him from the > moment he *went back* to Voldemort and had that personal contact. > All of his actions from then on are fairly easily readable from > the position of playing both sides, looking to see where and how > the chips are falling on the table. He then gets himself somewhat > trapped into the UV, which really disrupts his precarious yet > balanced position. Jen: Now if Snape started to play both sides, we still need a motive. What could Voldemort offer him that Dumbledore cannot? Snape's never said anything as an adult indicating support for the DE's pure-blood mania, and he's a smart enough wizard to know Voldemort suceeded in making himself immortal somehow, because of what happened at GH. Snape doesn't strike me as a person who actually wants Voldemort around *forever*, telling him what to do and whatnot. Do you think he finally gave up on Dumbledore's Plan, that Harry would be the one to defeat the Dark Lord? Seems like he wouldn't, after hearing part of the prophecy. Nora: > Now, I admit, this theory has a major weakness--it doesn't > *explain* so much as it is content to label. However, it has the > consequent of being remarkably straightforward. It requires no > postulated fake AK curse or secret plotting (or last-minute silent > communication) between Snape and Dumbledore. It is content to let > Snape's overtly positive actions be overtly positive and his > negative ones be negative, without an exculpatory apparatus put > onto every nasty little (or not so little) action. It requires > far less inference than DDM!Snape, for sure. I think > people don't like it because it's thematically very different > and rather harsh from where most of us (including myself) thought > the character arc was going. Don't dismiss it out of hand. Jen: There's something to the simplicity of it: If Snape did indeed force his own hand with the UV, wavered between his options the entire year, then in that moment on the tower decided to save himself, well....it's not inconsistent with the characterisation so far, or at least not with Harry's view of Snape. I'd say it's a pretty straightforward read to note he's not a typical DE, either, in that he wasn't spending his time Crucio'ing and cursing people or wreaking havoc at Hogwarts as he sped off the grounds. I'm still a little unclear what Snape hopes to gain with the double agent stuff. Canon & JKR say everyone could look in the Mirror and see their deepest desire, and Snape's desire is thus far unknown. We speculate, but don't know what makes him tick. Is it truly his love for dark arts? If so he's been remarkably patient for quite awhile. Is his deepest desire regarding potions/healing? Lily? Recognition? If it's recognition, then we saw something else significant on the tower. Snape gave up the possibility of winning any Merlin awards or the like when he offed DD ;). If he gave up on his deepest desire, then he traded it for something else. That's the murky part for me with OFH!Snape--what did he gain on the tower? On the surface he lost everything. Another explanation I'm partial to is on the boards again, explained this time by quick-silver71 in 140795: > Draco is given a mission that seems designed to drive his > desperate mother to Snape, the only person that can help her son. > Bellatrix is there, supposedly on the outs with Voldemort, who > then serves as bonder. Peter is there...adding to Snape's unease > or serving as a distraction. > > I believe that it would be incredibly easy for Voldemort to set up > the situation in Spinner's End that leads to Snape being caught in > the Unbreakable Vow at which point his loyalty or morality really > go out the window. I think that Voldemort gave Snape enough rope > to hang himself...just like he did to Harry in OotP (and CoS for > that matter too). > > Voldemort has a record of using plans that rely heavily on people > doing certain actions...CoS, GoF, and OotP make this point quite > clearly. Voldemort lets Harry come to him, to find things out > along the way, to do what he, Voldemort, wants, to accomplish the > goals that he, Voldemort, wants. > > In the end Severus Snape could well be not DDM, OFH, or ESE but > simply a man caught in the webs of so many plots by both > Dumbledore and Voldemort that he hung himself. Let's hope he gets > one real choice before the end. Jen: There's just a certain poetic justice to this. Snape's 'superb Occlumency' skills finally failed him and did not convince the Dark Lord of his loyalty, or Voldemort simply decided his use for Snape was at an end. What a delicious plan on Voldemort's part, and for plot purposes, the DE's and Harry need to see one of Voldemort's plans succeed in order to build tension for the grand finale. It's entirely fitting for Snape to finally be caught in the web of his own making--as people have mentioned, he saw himself in the Foe glass. This theory would explain why Snape didn't appear to know Draco's plan or the plan for the DE's to enter Hogwarts. Simply Machiavellian--Voldemort planned it all behind his back, forcing his hand. The tower scene could still be read in a straightforward fashion, as Snape made the choice to save himself, but how he got there....! Jen, hoping for something a little tricky with Snape From eriphila at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 14:43:59 2005 From: eriphila at yahoo.com (eriphila) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:43:59 -0000 Subject: Unbrekable Vow as shared hallucination? WAS: Re: OFH! Snape again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140803 Betsy Hp: > And finally, why does a Snape who is so willing and able to flip > sides at a moment's notice, tie himself down with the Unbreakable > Vow? I'm not sure where the Vow fits into an OFH! read on Snape's > character. I noticed something in rereading that chapter. Snape, the POTIONS MASTER, has his visitors join him in a drink. To make sure they all drink he toasts the Dark Lord, and everyone drains their glasses, except Wormtail, who is sent away but listens at doors. Could the vow then be a shared hallucination? We see shortly thereafter that F&G are selling daydreams-in-a-box. I wonder if Wormtail will return to say it never happened. Eriphila. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 19:20:48 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:20:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050927192048.58739.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140804 > vmonte: > No, I don't think that they would have mentioned that Snape was a > bully to Harry. JKR has a way of never letting her characters ask > questions when she doesn't want her readers to have the > information yet. But based on the bully that Snape is now, and the > fact that he belonged to a club of bullys while he was a DE, I'm > sure that he was one as a teenager too. Nonsense. You and Alla think Snape was a bully for no other reason than that you dislike the character. In the scene where Harry questions Sirius and Lupin about what he saw in the pensieve, they are very concerned that his image of James has suffered. This is very clear. They carefully ascertain just what exactly Harry did see and then work hard to explain to Harry that James wasn't always like that - not that he wasn't like that at all, but rather that he had other, better points as well. Had there been any extenuating circumstances, any option of explaining that things weren't quite what Harry perceived them as, they would have said so. Because they wanted to make sure Harry didn't lose respect for his father. So if Snape had been a bully, they'd have mentioned it. They didn't - in fact they discuss how Lupin wasn't able to stop the others from bugging Snape. As for the he-became-a-DE-so-he-could-bully/torture-people claim - again, I say nonsense. People join cults and gangs (the criminal kind) for all sorts of reasons, especially when you're young and stupid. Sirius himself - with no reason to whitewash things - says his parents were pro-Voldemort only at first until they realised what he was all about. So the idea that VOldemort was upfront and taking out billboard advertising about his real intentions is not established. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 19:26:55 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:26:55 -0000 Subject: OFH! Snape again. WAS: Straightforward readings? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140805 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > Jen: > Now if Snape started to play both sides, we still need a motive. > What could Voldemort offer him that Dumbledore cannot? Full freedom to be what he wants to be? There are topics of study as well as general approaches to life that Dumbledore or an ideologically similar regime marks as strictly off-limits. Dumbledore also holds some rather odd ideas for the WW, such as "innocent until proven guilty". Does the yoke chafe? Let me offer a counter-question to make the point better. Have we ever gotten strong support for Snape as an ideological kindred to Dumbledore? Snape is certainly not much into the forgive-and- understand model. He doesn't teach anything like how I'd imagine Dumbledore running things. Doesn't seem like someone to deeply believe in the powah of love, either. And to tick in Ceridwen's question from another thread, I suspect that there thus is an important distinction between an OFH!Snape who wants Voldemort dead and DDM!Snape who wants Voldemort dead. Motivation is really important, as JKR tends to put the radically self-interested at the bottom of the heap. "Enemy of my enemy is my friend" is *not* an idea that's gotten endorsement through the series- -see Harry and Scrimgeour for a nice illustration. [Short form: I think it matters why Snape is doing what he is. I find it hard to buy that he's doing it for ideologically beneficent reasons, and that may impact upon his ultimate fate.] > Do you think he finally gave up on Dumbledore's Plan, that Harry > would be the one to defeat the Dark Lord? Seems like he wouldn't, > after hearing part of the prophecy. Well, if you take his consistent attitude towards Harry as genuine rather than feigned (the straightforward reading :), it's eminently possible. So Snape is here, knowing part of the prophecy--but he can't *believe* that *this* Potter kid is going to be the one to finally vanquish Voldemort. From his hypothetical perspective, the kid is never going to be able to do this. [This line of thought makes sense to me, also, given Dumbledore's words at the end of OotP. They can easily be read as "I hoped Professor Snape would come to know, care for, and *value* you just as I do." No, I don't think Snape thinks Harry is special/valuable/exceptional, but I know that Dumbledore does.] Making sure he's good with the other side then becomes increasingly attractive. > If it's recognition, then we saw something else significant on the > tower. Snape gave up the possibility of winning any Merlin awards > or the like when he offed DD ;). If he gave up on his deepest > desire, then he traded it for something else. That's the murky part > for me with OFH!Snape--what did he gain on the tower? On the > surface he lost everything. Only for now, under the current regime. Regime change, Voldemort takes over and the definitely present undercurrent of the WW (remember that a lot of people in VW1 thought he had good ideas) comes into power...then there's all the recognition and elevation that one could want. The political connotations have certainly not been as emphasized as I thought they would, but I remember this line of thought from some time back, the culture war component of the DEs. I have no solid opinions on when things went egg-shaped, but in retrospect there are things that can be read as contributing to the motivation for some time. It will depend on the resolution to see if those were solid readings or not. -Nora is much better rested now, and still singing along From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Tue Sep 27 20:04:19 2005 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:04:19 -0400 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: <20050927192048.58739.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140806 Magda says: >Nonsense. You and Alla think Snape was a bully for no other reason >than that you dislike the character. PJ replies: Snape is a bully with at least *some* of the children at Hogwarts as an adult so I find it highly unlikely that this trait wasn't already a part of his personality as a child. In the pensieve scene we see his Mother "cowering" in a corner while his Father yells. People don't usually cower during a disagreement, they cower out of fear (the expectation?) of bodily harm. Children do tend to learn what they live so perhaps Snape learned quickly who had "the power" in his family which, in this case was the bully. He may not have liked his father but he appears to emulate him none the less... PJ From ibchawz at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 20:39:47 2005 From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:39:47 -0000 Subject: RAB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140807 > vadwe wrote: > > Does anyone ever question if RAB isn't necesarily Regulus? > > zgirnius: > Interesting theories proposed on this list post HBP (not by me!) > include: > One of the two kids Tom tormented in the cave. If I recall that post > correctly, one even had a B last name... What if she was adopted, > went to Hogwarts under a different name, and wanted revenge? > Amelia Bones. Assuming she has a hideous first name she hates, and so > goes by the middle name. > Borgin, of Borgin & Burkes, the Knockturn Alley store. (Burke's first > name is known to be Caractacus, so he does not fit). > Sorry, too lazy to wrestle Yahoomort for post numbers... ibchawz responds: Here are the possibilities that I have seen posted (either here or elsewhere): 1. Regulus A. Black - This seems to be the logical choice. He was a DE and decided that to back out once he found out what it was really like. The locket that no one could open at 12 GP also hints at Regulus being RAB. 2. R. Amy Benson (zgirnius mentioned above)- She was one of the tortured kids at the orphanage. There are open questions regarding this option. Could a muggle get through the magical protections in the cave? Was she indeed a witch instead of a muggle? 3. Rosmerta Amy Benson - I have seen it suggested that Rosmerta from the 3 Broomsticks is actually Amy Benson's daughter. I think this is quite a stretch. 4. R. A. Borgin (zgirnius mentioned above)- Due to his association with Tom Riddle, he probably would have known that TR was up to his eyeballs in the dark arts. 5. RABastan Lestrange - He was a DE, but I really read the "RAB" to be initials instead of shortened form of Rabastan. 6. Amelia Bones - This one has been proven to be a false lead since her full name is Amelia Susan Bones. Does anyone else have any additional possibilities? ibchawz From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 20:44:40 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:44:40 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: <20050927192048.58739.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140808 Magda: > Nonsense. You and Alla think Snape was a bully for no other reason > than that you dislike the character. Alla: Oooh, I so wanted to see "ad hominem" argument in action. Thank you! I gave my reasons of why I think that Snape was a bully, but I don't mind repeating some of them - we have a record of Snape inventing and USING curses, at least of one of which is unquestionably Dark. We have a record of Snape being a member of Slytherin gang and all of those turned out to be DE. As to disliking the character - sure, I do( and not keeping it a secret :-)) and much more than I used to. Small technical correction though - I don't dislike the character, but who this character IS in the story. As Rowling's creation - I absolutely love him and hope that he would end up evil, very very evil. ;) I am not sure though how like or dislike of the character makes my arguments less credible. Magda: > Had there been any extenuating circumstances, any option of > explaining that things weren't quite what Harry perceived them as, > they would have said so. Because they wanted to make sure Harry > didn't lose respect for his father. > > So if Snape had been a bully, they'd have mentioned it. They didn't > - in fact they discuss how Lupin wasn't able to stop the others from > bugging Snape. Alla: They do mention that Snape never lost a chance to hex James. It is good enough for me. Besides, I still say that book 5 is not the place to reveal everything about dear Severus. To me book 6 uncovered quite enough dirt on him. I think that book 7 may reveal even more. ;) Magda: So the idea that VOldemort was upfront and taking > out billboard advertising about his real intentions is not > established. Alla: What kind of "good intentions" could exist for joining Voldemort? I am curious now. JMO, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 22:30:40 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 22:30:40 -0000 Subject: UV = DDM? (was:Re: OFH! Snape again. WAS: Straightforward readings? In-Reply-To: <00aa01c5c30c$95856b60$cf21f204@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140809 > >>Sherry: > I admit I haven't thought my ideas on OFH Snape out to their > fullest yet, so I can't give you a good answer for all your > questions. But personally, to my mind, the unbreakable vow is the > greatest evidence against DDM Snape. Either that, or it's evidence > of damn fool Snape, which would negate his supposed intelligence > and brilliance as a spy. > Betsy Hp: A minor point of contention here: If Snape is DDM! he's managed to hoodwink Voldemort. If he's ESE! he's managed to hoodwink Dumbledore. And if he's OFH! then he's managed to hoodwink both Voldemort and Dumbledore. So I think his intelligence and brilliance as a spy is pretty much a given no matter what view you hold. (Don't sell Snape short, now! ) > >>Sherry: > As someone pointed out weeks ago, if he knew the elements of the > vow and is supposedly DDM, why on earth did he go through with > it? I don't buy to save Draco or anything else. > Betsy Hp: Well, let me lay out my theory and see how it suits you. First off, I have a few assumptions going into this scene. One is that Snape is definitely DDM. Second is that Snape does know what Voldemort has planned with Draco. So, Voldemort comes up with his "Lucius will *pay*!" plan and shares it with Snape (having learned from his PS/SS adventure that an uninformed Snape is an annoyingly interfering Snape). Snape, being DDM to the bone, immediately shares Voldemort's plan with Dumbledore. Dumbledore comes up with a plan of his own. Dumbledore is interested in two things, IMO. One (and I believe this is canon) is saving Draco, both morally and physically, from Voldemort. Second is somehow tying the Malfoys to the Order's side. Not necessarily getting the Malfoys to *join* the Order, mind you. Just obligated somehow. This is a bit of leap on my part, but I think there's a possibility that Lucius may have information regarding one or two of Voldemort's horcruxes. Information Dumbledore is very interested in obtaining. As per Dumbledore's personal moral code, however, I do think saving Draco from Voldemort would rank pretty high on his to-do list. So, Dumbledore tells Snape that he's going to allow Draco a bit of a free rein during the school year (the freedom to choose is essential to Draco's moral salvation per Dumbledore's personal code). Snape will be responsible for keeping Draco from doing anything stupid (e.g. kill a bunch of innocents on his way to Dumbledore's office). Once Draco realizes that he's not a killer and Voldemort ain't all that, Dumbledore will offer the Malfoy family sanctuary, and just like that, the Malfoys are obligated to Dumbledore and the Order. Snape knows all this when Narcissa and Bellatrix arrive on his doorstep. An unexpected, but not unwelcome, visit. He tells Narcissa, yes Voldemort wants your precious son dead as an object lesson to your husband (for that raid your sister messed up). And he assures her that as their family friend he's quite willing to look out for Draco. All is going according to plan because the Malfoy family is obviously reassessing their loyalty to Voldemort (Narcissa is willfully disobeying a direct order by coming to Snape), and Snape is proving himself to be concerned with the Malfoy family welfare. Enter the Unbreakable Vow. This is *not* something that either Snape or Dumbledore forsaw, IMO. And this is where the DADA curse may well manifest itself. (See Carol's excellent post on the DADA jinx here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137961 ) Snape thinks he knows what Narcissa will ask of him. After all, she's already given her request (protect and help Draco) and Snape has already agreed to do so. This is merely a formality. Plus, it's further proof that Snape has the Malfoy's best interest at heart and may even tie the Malfoys more tightly to the Order. So Snape takes a risk and agrees. And he pays for it. Being DDM, Snape tells Dumbledore exactly what he Vowed as soon as he gets a chance. By this time Dumbledore has been injured (I believe fatally) and has already planned for Snape to remain only one more year at Hogwarts. (Hence his giving Snape the DADA position and his requiring not only a Potions Master but a replacement Slytherin head.) Dumbledore, aware that he's dying, incorporates the terms of the Vow into his end game plan. Snape will not only need to be *present* at Dumbledore's death, he must have a hand in it. Snape's life depends on it. And Dumbledore's final plan depends on Snape being alive. This is why Dumbledore is so desperate for Harry to fetch Snape when they arrive on the tower, IMO. I don't think Dumbledore expected to survive the poison he drank back in the cave. But if he died without Snape's assistence than Harry would find himself doubly alone. Harry was already loosing Dumbledore, he couldn't afford (the WW couldn't afford) to loose Snape as well. So yes, I *do* think part of the reason for Snape taking the Vow was to protect Draco. Frankly, it fits quite well into Dumbledore's philosophy of protecting the Hogwarts students, IMO. I think another part may have been to put the Malfoy family into Snape's (and therefore Dumbledore's) debt. I think the DADA jinx had a definite influence as well. However, if Snape is merely OFH, there seems no reason to court the Malfoys. Their power has slipped within the WW and Voldemort's court. They never had any power within the Order. And if Snape is ESE then it makes no sense whatsoever to make the Vow since it goes against Voldemort's orders that Draco is to handle his task alone. I'm sure this clear it all up for you. Betsy Hp From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 22:35:06 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:35:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050927223506.33686.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140810 > Alla: > > They do mention that Snape never lost a chance to hex James. It is > good enough for me. That was after sixth year, not in the years preceding. > Magda: > > So the idea that VOldemort was upfront and taking > > out billboard advertising about his real intentions is not > > established. > > > Alla: > > What kind of "good intentions" could exist for joining Voldemort? I > am curious now. Don't misquote me. I never said "good intentions". I said that young people often join gangs (criminal ones) and cults for all kinds of reasons - and they do. And we have Sirius' comment that people thought Voldemort had the "right idea" at first, and that even his family - who he has no incentive to excuse for anything - backed away once they realized what he was really all about. Magda __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 23:11:51 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 23:11:51 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: <20050927192048.58739.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140811 Magda wrote: Nonsense. You and Alla think Snape was a bully for no other reason than that you dislike the character. In the scene where Harry questions Sirius and Lupin about what he saw in the pensieve, they are very concerned that his image of James has suffered. This is very clear. They carefully ascertain just what exactly Harry did see and then work hard to explain to Harry that James wasn't always like that - not that he wasn't like that at all, but rather that he had other, better points as well. Had there been any extenuating circumstances, any option of explaining that things weren't quite what Harry perceived them as, they would have said so. Because they wanted to make sure Harry didn't lose respect for his father. So if Snape had been a bully, they'd have mentioned it. They didn't - in fact they discuss how Lupin wasn't able to stop the others from bugging Snape. As for the he-became-a-DE-so-he-could-bully/torture-people claim - again, I say nonsense. People join cults and gangs (the criminal kind) for all sorts of reasons, especially when you're young and stupid. Sirius himself - with no reason to whitewash things - says his parents were pro-Voldemort only at first until they realised what he was all about. So the idea that VOldemort was upfront and taking out billboard advertising about his real intentions is not established. 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. What kind of people do you suppose join the DEs (KKK,Nazis)? Certainly not friendly type people--the kind of people that believe in diversity and equality. And certainly not anyone I would want teaching my child--especially when they continue to behave in an inappropriate manner. You can believe what you like, but the only person that is fooling themself is you. Vivian From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 23:25:27 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 23:25:27 -0000 Subject: Is Bella the keeper of a Horcrux? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140812 While looking up something in "Spinner's End" (no, not SHIPping clues, I do think of other things too) I stumbled upon an intriguing slip of the tongue by Bellatrix. Here it is: *************************************************************** HBP, Ch. 2 p. 29 (US): "He shares everything with me!" said Bellatrix, firing up at once. "He calls me his most loyal, his most faithful ?" "Does he?" said Snape, his voice delicately inflected to suggest his disbelief. "Does he still, after the fiasco at the Ministry?" "That was not my fault!" said Bellatrix, flushing. "The Dark Lord has, in the past, entrusted me with his most precious ? if Lucius hadn't ?" "Don't you dare ? don't you dare blame my husband!" said Narcissa, in a low and deadly voice, looking up at her sister. *************************************************************** Look at it again, it's easy to miss: "The Dark Lord has, in the past, entrusted me with his most precious ? " and then she cuts herself short and changes tack. What was the next word to be? Going by the context of Lucius' fiasco in the Ministry it would have been "missions" or something similar, but that doesn't fit well with the adjective "precious", and besides why would she censor herself so abruptly? OTOH, going by "most precious" the appropriate next word would be "secrets" or, even more appropriate, "possessions". Now, Lucius *is* part of the context, and Lucius *was* entrusted with guarding a Hx, while Snape apparently wasn't. So was Bella about to brag that she was entrusted with another Hx before cutting herself short? Maybe the Hufflepuff Cup? Of course, she said "in the past" so perhaps she meant she's no longer entrusted with it, but she might have an idea where it is now. Granted, Bella isn't likely to tell. But wasn't she tutoring Draco in occlumency? And I bet she didn't take the precautions Snape took to hide his classified memories first. And Draco perhaps thought to use a shield spell at some point, just like Harry did, and was treated with a stream of Bella's most precious secrets. And Draco isn't very chummy with Voldy and the DEs at the moment. So might Draco redeem himself by revealing the location of a Horcrux to Harry? Neri From anurim at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 23:49:32 2005 From: anurim at yahoo.com (Mira) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:49:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: RAB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050927234933.42152.qmail@web32615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140813 > ibchawz responds: > Here are the possibilities that I have seen posted > (either here or > elsewhere): Mira: Jo has misled us once, with 'Prince' being a name. What if at least one letter among RAB, if not the whole acronym, comes from the name of a thing, and not of a person? My current favorite is: 7. RAB = Remember Amelia Bones. We don't know when the real Horcrux was stolen and why the person who found it thought that death was imminent. But we do know that Voldemort considered Amelia important enough to kill her himself, and that her flat looked devastated afterwards. Could it be that Voldemort was looking for something among Amelia's posessions? Could it be that he knew about the lost locket (hence the replenished potion), and wanted either to find it or to make another Horcrux on that night? It does seem certain that Amelia's death was important enough for him to use it to create a final Horcrux, especially if he knew that one has been discovered already (or instead of the diary). I like this theory not only because it explaines why Amelia was brought onto the scene at all, but also because it validates my belief that members of all houses will be involved in destroying the Horcruxes. Since I believe Snape will be the one who kills Voldemort's body, and therefore the last part of his soul, I don't like the place of the Slytherin hero to be already taken by Regulus. I much prefer Amelia, possibly a former Hufflepuff, to have destroyed the locket. This theory leaves at least one question mark: what then would bring to the story the fact that Mundungus stole objects from 12 Grimmauld Place? I believe the answer is that among those objects there will be the twin mirror, thus enabling Harry to use the pair (as Jo said he will). And how about: 8. RAB = Remember Amy Benson? It could be that RAB actually gives us no indication about the identity of the person (definitely wizard!) who found the locket. That would really be a twist worth of Jo's talent. If at least two wizards must be present, so that one drinks the potion and the other fights the Inferi, could it be that the original pair was a wizard plus a muggle? The muggle had no powers, so his presence would not be registered by Voldemort's magic, but he or she could have well drunk the potion, enabling the wizard to remain strong enough to fight the dead bodies. In fact, the possible presence of Kreacher in the cave is the only part of the RAB=Regulus theories that I like. Dumbledore said at least one time that 'Kreacher was made what he is by wizards'; could it be that he became bitter and crazy after having drunk the potion, on Regulus' command? Was Dumbledore fated for the same transformation? Was this why he begged Severus to kill him? I have also seen - but not originated! - the very neat theory that: 9. RAB = Ronald+Arthur+Bilius (a 'wand-name' of the three Weasley senior brothers, or perhaps somebody in the family who bore all three names). For the sake of completeness, I will mention another possibility, for which I do not have a full theory as yet: 10. RAB = something to do with Andromeda (formerly Black, if I am not mistaken, but do let me know if I am). As a conclusion to a long post (sorry), I must stress that I would not be satisfied at all if RAB was Regulus. At no other time had Jo given us obvious or incomplete (what does A stand for?) clues. At the moment I don't have any emotional involvement in the books, so any outcome would seem equally likely, but I still kind of expect better surprises. Mira From jmrazo at hotmail.com Wed Sep 28 00:44:31 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 00:44:31 -0000 Subject: UV = DDM? (was:Re: OFH! Snape again. WAS: Straightforward readings? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140814 > > Betsy Hp: > A minor point of contention here: If Snape is DDM! he's managed to > hoodwink Voldemort. If he's ESE! he's managed to hoodwink > Dumbledore. And if he's OFH! then he's managed to hoodwink both > Voldemort and Dumbledore. So I think his intelligence and > brilliance as a spy is pretty much a given no matter what view you > hold. (Don't sell Snape short, now! ) I would agree with this, whatever else you think about Snape, he is a talented man at many things. > Betsy Hp: > So, Voldemort comes up with his "Lucius will *pay*!" plan and shares > it with Snape (having learned from his PS/SS adventure that an > uninformed Snape is an annoyingly interfering Snape). Snape, being > DDM to the bone, immediately shares Voldemort's plan with > Dumbledore. Dumbledore comes up with a plan of his own. I have to say that I recently reread Spinners End and I'm becoming more open to the interpretation of A DDM!Snape for two reasons. I saw a lot of Snape circling around The Plan without saying anything even remotely specific about it. It strikes as someone who is trying to bluff their way through a plan when they don't really know what's going on. I can't imagine that Snape would have even thought about Draco assassinating DD. Seems like Voldemort's pride wouldn't allow anyone to steal his glory. Same with Harry. The title of the chapter itself also seems to indicate the end of the spinner himself, Severus Snape. He finally manages to outsmart himself in his highstakes game. So while I can buy a DDM Snape (reluctantly) the only way I can see it working is if Snape is ignorant of the plan, at least at first, and ends up trapped through his own machinations. > So, Dumbledore tells Snape that he's going to allow Draco a bit of a > free rein during the school year (the freedom to choose is essential > to Draco's moral salvation per Dumbledore's personal code). Don't get me started on how stupid this was as a plan. Sure, lets have an mildly competent assassin running around the school. Great idea! > Being DDM, Snape tells Dumbledore exactly what he Vowed as soon as > he gets a chance. By this time Dumbledore has been injured (I > believe fatally) and has already planned for Snape to remain only > one more year at Hogwarts. (Hence his giving Snape the DADA > position and his requiring not only a Potions Master but a > replacement Slytherin head.) Dumbledore, aware that he's dying, > incorporates the terms of the Vow into his end game plan. Snape > will not only need to be *present* at Dumbledore's death, he must > have a hand in it. Snape's life depends on it. And Dumbledore's > final plan depends on Snape being alive. I'm still not convinced that Dumbledore is dying throughout the book. He would have done more to prepare people for the aftermath of his death. everyone was so awestruck by his demise it was like they had never considered that he might not survive, but I cannot imagine that he, Albus Dumbledore, master strategist would have left people with that impression unless he wasn't actually planning on dying. If it was a surprise then the chaos after his death could lead to any number of gains by the death eaters, including more recuits who might have lost their way after the great hope of the light died. But McG was so surprised by his death she even got advice from *Harry*. Come on, a seventy year old woman looking to a teenager? Not unless she was floundering which she wouldn't have been if Dumbledore laid out his wishes explicity as he would have done if he were actually planning on shedding his mortal coil anytime soon. Dumbledore was good (but not perfect) at the deep game of chess and he might have laid out any number of plans with Snape but I don't think any of them would have ever involved the willing sacrifice of his own life. Death might be the next great adventure but I don't think that DD was quite finished with this one. phoenixgod2000 From jajaredor at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 17:43:57 2005 From: jajaredor at yahoo.com (jajaredor) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 17:43:57 -0000 Subject: Who is RAB again. WAS:Re: Snape and Regulus/OFH!Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140815 Amontillada: > I agree that Regulus is a likely candidate for RAB, but I still > suspect that he's a false lead precisely because he's such an obvious > candidate. I foresee about two years of fertile speculation! Jaja says: I really believe that R.A.B. stands for Regulus Arcturus Black. I remember reading once that in deutsch, black is zwarts but this hasn't been proved yet because I don't have a copy of the book in deutsch version. so if RAB is really Regulus then the initials in the deutsch version would be RAZ. Jaja. From jajaredor at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 22:48:26 2005 From: jajaredor at yahoo.com (jajaredor) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 22:48:26 -0000 Subject: Not a Dark Mark ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140816 Valky wrote: Throughout HBP Draco starts to look more and more sickly. He keeps disappearing. In Borgin and Burkes he shows Borgin something that frightens him, Harry thinks its a Dark Mark, but how can we be sure. Can we even really be sure that a Dark Mark would frighten Borgin? When Snape showed Fudge his burning Dark Mark, it didn't frighten him much, and there are many in the WW who don't even know what they are. Well it could be a Dark Mark, but since there *is* reason for doubt, then why don't we call it a Werewolf bite ? Jaja: It's possible that what Draco showed to borgin was a werewolf bite. i was really torn in between DM and werewolf bite actually but suspects more that it was a werewolf bite because I really don't think DM would frighten borgin plus draco mentioned that Greyback was a family friend, erm... i thought that's what he said or something like that... Valky now: Yeah he does disappear a lot. And Harry cannot get into the room of Requirement by asking to find Draco Malfoy. At the end of the book we find Draco *was* up to something in the ROR, so I do still wonder why the ROR didn't provide. Maybe Draco wasn't there, or maybe Draco wasn't Draco. Both work for me. In either case there is evidence to be considering an additional factor in Draco's dissappearances. Jaja : well, Draco could've been in the ROR when he disappeared once in awhile or, if he was really bitten by a werewolf then, he could be wondering off the forest grounds. we really can't tell plus the story was told from Harry's POV so we can't keep tabs of what Draco's been doing most of the times even if harry ordered kreacher and Dobby to tail Draco. those two elves couldn't possibly be tailing him 24/7 because if they were, then they should've probably known how to enter ROR. of course they'll see him doing it and over hear what he'll ask from the ROR.. providing Harry the right words to say when he seek the ROR. Valky: I guess what I am saying is that the only Werewolf Draco to consider here is a deliberately well hidden one. But it does look plausible to me. Jaja: let's say that Draco was bitten by werewolf, he transforms every month... well, for first timers i should've think that it'll exhaust them more than those who were used to it... i mean, they should know how to handle it by now and the fact that Draco has more on his plate. he has an order from Voldemort. hhmm... what if Draco goes to the ROR once a month to transform so he doesn't have to go out the grounds? hhmmm... Valky: There is also him saying that nobody could help him, which is not quite true since Snape is bound to a UV to do just that unless he isn't talking about helping him with his task. Finally there is his comment to Snape at Christmas, that the whole Dark Arts Defense thing is silly, noone needs defending against it, which begs the question of how scared he really is of Voldemort, he sounds like Bella, he sounds faithful. Jaja: yep.. he surely says that nobody could help him... but what if he meant about being a werewolf? we all know that there is still no cure to that disease right? so nobody could probably help him... Carodave: How would Borgin even recognize a werewolf bite? Does a werewolf bite have distinguishing characteristics that make it different from a dog bite or another animal's bite? Other than the results of turning the victim into a werewolf of course. Jaja: I don't know for sure, as Valky said Bill's wounds were the closest description we could ever get so far... but what if Draco was just freshly bitten by Greyback? mentioning that werewolf's name would give it away right? Jaja. From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Sep 28 01:34:48 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 01:34:48 -0000 Subject: OFH! Snape again. WAS: Straightforward readings? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140817 Jen: [...] > --as people have mentioned, he saw himself in the Foe > glass. houyhnhnm: Superb! I spent so much time speculating on the literal meaning of Snape's gazing at his own reflection in the Foe Glass, I didn't consider it as a metaphor. Snape is indeed his own worst enemy. Jen: > Simply Machiavellian--Voldemort planned it all behind > his back, forcing his hand. houyhnhnm: Narcissa could have been a knowing accomplice. Voldemort could have told her straight out that her only hope of saving Draco was to entrap Snape into making an unbreakable vow, or she could have been manipulated. I can see Narcissa pleading with LV, and LV saying something like, "Why don't you ask your husband's good friend Severus Snape to help you--if you think you can trust him." And Narcissa coming up with the idea of an Unbreakable Vow on her own. It's hard to believe that Voldemort really bought Snape's story when he returned. More likely that Snape created just enough doubt to keep himself alive while LV waited for proof of Snape's treachery or for the opportunity to use and punish Snape at the same time. Jen: > The tower scene could still > be read in a straightforward fashion, as Snape made the > choice to save himself, but how he got there....! houyhnhnm: For me, the idea that Voldemort was behind the UV fits into the DD'sMan!Snape theory. We see how carefully Snape arranges his emotions to safeguard himself from Voldemort's Legilimency. He won't even break bread with the other members of the Order. We see the extent to which Dumbledore shares his concern. Dumbledore leaves Harry feeling alone and rejected for a whole year because he is afraid that Voldemort might find out and make use of his affection for Harry. What if the same dynamic was at work in the relationship between Snape and Dumbledore? Snape careful never to step out of his role as dutiful employee, never even to call Dumbledore by name. Dumbledore careful never to show Snape any mark of personal regard. Then Dumbledore receives a nearly fatal curse while retrieving and destroying the ring horcrux. We never learn the details. There are so many other parallels between Harry and Snape in HBP. It has me wondering if there wasn't a parallel "I am not worried ... I am with you." What if the defenses of both men were breached at the time that Snape saved Dumbledore from the curse? What if, never having had feelings of affection to repress, Snape wasn't able to shield the change in his relationship with Dumbledore from Voldemort? Voldemort realized his moment was come and the trap was set. The perfect punishment. Make Snape kill the only person who cared about him, the only person the adult Snape had ever managed to love, and get rid of The Only One He Ever Feared at the same time. As for the tower, I think both Snape and Dumbledore tried to prevent such a scene from taking place all year, but once they were all arrived there nobody had a choice. The real test for Snape would have come when Dumbledore arrived back at the castle, poisoned, with no successful Draco plot, no DE's in the castle. Would Snape have tried to save Dumbledore's life or not? We'll never know and neither will Snape. Hence the "DON'T CALL ME COWARD!" From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 01:41:48 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 01:41:48 -0000 Subject: UV = DDM? (was:Re: OFH! Snape again. WAS: Straightforward readings? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140818 > >>Phoenixgod: > I would agree with this, whatever else you think about Snape, he is > a talented man at many things. > I have to say that I recently reread Spinners End and I'm becoming > more open to the interpretation of A DDM!Snape for two reasons. > Betsy Hp: Yay! I should stop reading your post right about now, huh? (Or is this the moment I should demand to know who you are and what have you done with the real Phoenixgod?) > >>Phoenixgod: > I saw a lot of Snape circling around The Plan without saying > anything even remotely specific about it. It strikes as someone who > is trying to bluff their way through a plan when they don't really > know what's going on. Betsy Hp: I had similar suspicions, but Snape immediately stops poking around right around the time Narcissa is about to spill the beans. It strikes me as a strange time to stop if you're trying to figure out what's going on. However, if you're the author trying to keep knowledge shared by all the characters in a scene out of your audiences hands, it's a *perfect* time to stop. Which is why I've come to the conclusion that Snape does actually know what's going on. > >>Phoenixgod: > > The title of the chapter itself also seems to indicate the end of > the spinner himself, Severus Snape. He finally manages to outsmart > himself in his highstakes game. Betsy Hp: This I do agree with. But I think it's because Snape decided to do the Unbreakable Vow. I think he was trying to tie Narcissa's (and by extention, the Malfoy's) hands, and he ended up tying his own. > >>Phoenixgod: > So while I can buy a DDM Snape (reluctantly) the only way I can see > it working is if Snape is ignorant of the plan, at least at first, > and ends up trapped through his own machinations. Betsy Hp: Hmm. I actually think it works even better if Snape thinks he's about to *improve* on Dumbledore's plan. It shows a certain over confidence that often goes before a fall. (Kinda like Luke's "You'll find I'm full of surprises" in ESB just before Vader totally kicks his ass.) > >>Betsy Hp: > > So, Dumbledore tells Snape that he's going to allow Draco a bit > > of a free rein during the school year (the freedom to choose is > > essential to Draco's moral salvation per Dumbledore's personal > > code). > >>Phoenixgod: > Don't get me started on how stupid this was as a plan. Sure, lets > have an mildly competent assassin running around the school. Great > idea! Betsy Hp: I agree with this actually. It does seem recklessly dangerous. But this is the same man who decided to let a known Voldemort supporter run around Hogwarts for an entire school year (PS/SS). Honestly, I think the WW has a totally different idea of basic personal safety. (The Knight Bus doesn't only lack seatbelts, the seats aren't even bolted to the floor. And then there's Quidditch.) > >>Phoenixgod: > I'm still not convinced that Dumbledore is dying throughout the > book. He would have done more to prepare people for the aftermath > of his death. everyone was so awestruck by his demise it was like > they had never considered that he might not survive, but I cannot > imagine that he, Albus Dumbledore, master strategist would have > left people with that impression unless he wasn't actually planning > on dying. > Betsy Hp: But we have hints of a spy at Hogwarts, don't we? Dumbledore feels that if he even approached Draco, Narcissa would be dead. I'm thinking Dumbledore wasn't too up on who he could fully trust. I think Snape was honestly his most trusted man. And I think Dumbledore *was* preparing everyone for his death. He really pushes Harry to learn everything Dumbledore knows about Voldemort. He leaves the school tons of times so I'm sure McGonagall was pretty much the defacto headmistress for all of HBP. He makes sure Snape is put into a position where Voldemort is sure to trust him. He makes sure someone is there to look after the Slytherins when he and Snape are gone. And he really pushes himself to find as many of the horcruxes he can before the end. Everything about Dumbledore's character in HBP seemed to read, hurry, hurry, hurry, to me. And usually Dumbledore is a fairly patient man, allowing others to arrive at the conclusion he reached eons ago at their own pace. > >>Phoenixgod: > If it was a surprise then the chaos after his death could lead to > any number of gains by the death eaters, including more recuits who > might have lost their way after the great hope of the light died. > Betsy Hp: But there wasn't really any moment of chaos was there? The Order didn't crumble. Hogwarts may close, but that has little to do with the fight against Voldemort now (as Harry has concluded). If Dumbledore had told folks he was dying *that* would have sent the Order into a tail-spin. Any perceived weakness on Dumbledore's part would have been exploited to the max by Voldemort. Which is why, I think, Dumbledore didn't hide his injury. After all, if it was a bad injury he *would* try to hide it, right? By showing little interest in it Dumbledore implied that it was no big deal. And the Order continued on. And Harry continued on. And Hogwarts continued on. Yes, McGonagall floundered a tiny bit on whether to keep Hogwarts open. But it was a small flounder, and if Hogwarts had been attacked... erm, again, I'm sure the Order would have fought just as hard (if not harder) and just as smoothly as when Dumbledore *was* there. (Especially when you notice that Dumbledore didn't do any actual directing the first time aruond, being busy with horcrux hunting and all that.) > >>Phoenixgod: > Dumbledore was good (but not perfect) at the deep game of chess and > he might have laid out any number of plans with Snape but I don't > think any of them would have ever involved the willing sacrifice of > his own life. > Death might be the next great adventure but I don't think that DD > was quite finished with this one. Betsy Hp: Of course Dumbledore didn't *choose* to die! He destroyed the ring horcrux and was mortally wounded as a result. I think if it weren't for Snape, Dumbledore may have died right then. But I think Snape was only able to give him a stop-gap, a tiny bit of time during which Dumbledore carefully placed his final pieces on the board. No, Dumbledore didn't choose death, but when it came he did choose to not freeze in the face of it and to make sure his death was meaningful. It won't surprise me at all if Harry receives a final letter or something from Dumbledore once he's returned to the Dursleys (his one true sanctuary, for now). Betsy Hp From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Sep 28 01:52:19 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 01:52:19 -0000 Subject: Not a Dark Mark ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140819 Ceridwen: Okay, I'm not wholly convinced of the werewolf bite v. the Dark Mark, though it's an alternative since I don't think Draco has the DM yet. I think he may have been promised it once he completed his mission, but no canon to back that up. Just a feeling. But, reading this: > Jaja: > > I don't know for sure, as Valky said Bill's wounds were the closest > description we could ever get so far... but what if Draco was just > freshly bitten by Greyback? mentioning that werewolf's name would > give it away right? What if Draco was bitten by a non-transformed Greyback, like Bill was? Show bite, mention Greyback in a manner suggestive of retribution as he did, and that might frighten a man who fears for more than his life, or for the lives and futures of children or grandchildren. Since the wounds don't seem to heal as readily as other wounds, a fresh bite not on a full moon might mimick a bite from the most recent full moon. Draco doesn't change, he perhaps gets a taste for more red meat but that's about it, and permanent scarring. A fresh bite would explain the sensitivity at Madam Malkin's toward his arm. Not a fear that she'll reveal or find a DM, but pain or at least discomfort when the area is touched, even by fabric dragging over it. And, I'm not sure, if this is the case, that Draco would tell Narcissa. Maybe he would, this is the tail end of his childhood. He may still have one running to Mama episode left in him. Or, maybe not. He obviously slipped away from her to visit Borgin and Burke's. Or, she knows, and is relieved that it was a non-moon night bite. Voldemort apparently wanted to punish the Malfoys, this could have been a warning shot across the bow before the cannon-fire commenced with the mission. Here, let the werewolf bite your son. No, wait, now that he's bitten, let's drag him in deeper... I don't think Draco automatically warranted the 'award' of a DM since his father was in disfavor. I think he was told he would earn it by successfully accomplishing the mission LV set. I do think he showed something. Given the nature of the shop, I don't think there's much that would startle its proprietor. But, knowing Fenrir Greyback's malicious attacks on children and the way he sets himself up to almost guarantee that he'll get the child in question, just might. I'm not wedded to this theory. I'm not even going steady with it. I think the idea of the DM was another red herring being strung along the trail, and I'm at a loss as to what could have impressed Borgin (it was him and not Burke, wasn't it? Having a brain cramp just now) otherwise. The addition of the word 'fresh' does make me think about it all again. Was this near the full moon? That's a snag, IMO, on the fake bite issue. If it was completely fresh and the full moon was the night or two before, then Draco is a werewolf. But, it was interesting that the wounds, even from a non-transformed werewolf are difficult to heal, as revealed much later in the book. I don't think, after re- reading certain parts and mulling over Harry's obsession with Draco - Harry would have noticed a pattern of full-moon disappearances, wouldn't he? - that Draco is a werewolf. But a bite from an untransformed werewolf might appear similar if not identical, coupled with the close reference to Greyback being a family 'friend' (he's in with the DEs), could carry it off. I do expect Borgin to be able to tell the difference between a dog bite and its aftermath and a werewolf bite, given his trade. Ceridwen. From drednort at alphalink.com.au Wed Sep 28 01:57:41 2005 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:57:41 +1000 Subject: Snape as a bully? (was Bullying was Prodigal Son) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <433A8535.7411.408A79E@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 140820 I've been rather hesitant about getting involved in this discussion, primarily because I'm currently having to do a lot of work in real life involving bullying. But I've decided that I need to get back into posting as a form of general stress relief, and this is the topic that has grabbed me. I hate to say this, but I am considered to be something of an authority on bullying. I was bullied extremely severely as a child and as a result of that I got involved in advocacy as an adult on a range of issues that include bullying. I've had a number of articles published on bullying either as the main focus, or as a subfocus in a larger article, I've written a chapter of a book to be published next year (hopefully - it was to be published this year, but has been pushed back), I'm on committees concerning bullying - including one rather high level committee. I keep myself informed about articles and discussions of bullying etc. I go into schools and talk about bullying to teachers and students - I'm actually supposed to be doing a presentation tomorrow night that will probably go into bullying, so this is something I have been looking at a lot over the last few days. So - that's where my perspective comes from. Is Snape a bully? Ooh, that is a very hard question - because like so many others it depends a lot on the definitions that you use. Personally, on my own definitions (and these are informed by a wide range of formal definitions, but are also quite personal), I would say that the adult Snape is not a bully - at least not necessarily. To me, part of what makes somebody a bully is their motivation - a bully bullies out of selfish self-gratification. In my view, it is quite likely that Snape believes his behaviour in the classroom and in the school is to the benefit of the students - some people will disagree vehemently about whether it is or not, but even a mistaken motivation is still a motivation. I have noted in the past that Snape's actions against Neville, for example, nearly always come immediately after Neville *has* done something wrong. They don't come out of nowhere. Snape is nasty. That doesn't make him a bully. Was Snape a bully as a child and adolescent? Maybe. I can certainly believe that he might have been based on what we see in the books. But what do we really know about his behaviour as a child? Yes, we know, that on at least one occasion he called somebody a perjorative name, in a way that to most of us seems equivalent to racism (simply because it's the closest equivalent to the pure blood/muggle born continuum most of us know about). Such behaviour is inappropriate but a single incident like that does not make somebody a bully. I'd just like to briefly outline a possible scenario. I cannot prove this scenario, I just think that it fits the facts as well as any other scenario. We know that Snape *was* bullied at Hogwarts by the Marauders (again, that is by my definition - but it does seem very clear to me). ********* 'This'll liven you up, Padfoot,' said James quietly. 'Look who it is...' Sirius's head turned. He became very still, like a dog that has scented a rabbit. 'Excellent,' he said softly. 'Snivellus.' Harry turned to see what Sirius was looking at. Snape was on his feet again, and was stowing the OWL paper in his bag. As he left the shadows of the bushes and set off across the grass, Sirius and James stood up. Lupin and Wormtail remained sitting: Lupin was still staring down at his book, though his eyes were not moving and a faint frown line had appeared between his eyebrows; Wormtail was looking from Sirius and James to Snape with a look of avid anticipation on his face. 'All right, Snivellus?' said James loudly. Snape reacted so fast it was as though he had been expecting an attack: dropping his bag, he plunged his hand inside his robes and his wand was halfway into the air when James shouted, 'Expelliarmus!' ********** In that passage, James and Sirius are clearly bullying Snape. Wormtail is every bit as guilty as they are - he's obviously enjoying it. Lupin is, perhaps, a little better - he obviously doesn't approve, but he doesn't do anything to stop it. They start by calling Snape names - and Snape's reaction really does suggest to me that this is something they have done before. They are bullying Snape - and Lily says it very well: ********** 'You think you're funny,' she said coldly. 'But you're just an arrogant, bullying toerag, Potter. Leave him alone.' ********** This is the context in which Snape calls Lily a Mudblood. His behaviour is unacceptable - but I really do think that using that incident as evidence that he may have been a bully is rather unfair. He's under a lot of stress. He's being publically humiliated by a gang of bullies - because that is what the Marauders are at this point - while virtually everybody else stands around and laughs at him. Lashing out with an insult, no matter how foul, in that situation is not a real sign that someone is a bully. Then there is the issue of the fact that Snape hung around with a gang of Slytherins, many of whom later became deatheaters. Is that a sign that Snape was a bully? Maybe - but honestly, given what we actually see in canon - a boy who is bullied himself, and worse than that seems to be so unpopular that even people who aren't bullying him laugh at what happens to him, and the only person who comes to his aid does so, certainly not because she is his friend - but just because she is a decent person... I really wonder did Snape join that gang of Slytherins, not because he was a bully, but because he wanted protection from them. The only real evidence I can see that Snape was a bully at school comes from Lily. 'Fine,' she said coolly. 'I won't bother in future. And I'd wash your pants if I were you, Snivellus.' 'Apologise to Evans!' James roared at Snape, his wand pointed threateningly at him. 'I don't want you to make him apologise,' Lily shouted, rounding on James. 'You're as bad as he is.' Lily already regards James as an arrogant bullying toerag - saying he is as bad as Snape, suggests that she may have similar views about Snape. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From sherriola at earthlink.net Wed Sep 28 02:02:10 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:02:10 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] UV = DDM? (was:Re: OFH! Snape again. WAS: Straightforward readings? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001e01c5c3d0$a4b81af0$b724f204@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 140821 Betsy Hp: Of course Dumbledore didn't *choose* to die! He destroyed the ring horcrux and was mortally wounded as a result. I think if it weren't for Snape, Dumbledore may have died right then. But I think Snape was only able to give him a stop-gap, a tiny bit of time during which Dumbledore carefully placed his final pieces on the board. No, Dumbledore didn't choose death, but when it came he did choose to not freeze in the face of it and to make sure his death was meaningful. Sherry: I can't find anything meaningful in Dumbledore's death. I find it a waste and a crime and a not very well thought out plan, if it was a plan. I am never resigned to death and never think it's a good thing. I don't necessarily believe Dumbledore was either dying from the injury to his hand or the potion in the cave. No matter what motives Snape had for killing him, nothing could excuse it. It doesn't help to have Snape be firmly seen to be in Voldemort's camp, because nobody will believe a word that comes out of his mouth now. And even if they could be convinced, how on earth is having Snape close to Voldemort more important than having Dumbledore alive, the only wizard that Voldemort ever feared. We lose one great weapon for a not so great and not very wise replacement. It just doesn't make sense to me. I suppose that is because I cannot fathom the death ever making sense. i doubt even JKR can make it make sense to me. Where there's life and all that. I never could become resigned to Frodo running off to the gray havens in LOTR either. i am not resigned or accepting of death. LOL. But in a practical sense, there hasn't been an excuse put forth yet, that makes me think, oh yeah, that could be a good reason for Dumbledore to have died at Snape's hand or seemingly at Snape's hand. Sherry From bibphile at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 02:07:23 2005 From: bibphile at yahoo.com (bibphile) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:07:23 -0000 Subject: Is Punishment the only recompense? (was Re: Straightforward readings?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140822 Marianne: And that is a major part of why I would find it very unsatisfying. Whether or not Snape would find words meaningless is immaterial. It's not about him doing as he sees fit, even if his actions are all for the good now. To me that smacks of letting Snape off the hook, in a sense, in that it allows him to atone in the way that he's most comfortable with or the way he feels is best. He's not acknowledging to the person or people whom his actions have hurt that he's sorry for what he's done to them. bibphile: I suppose there are two reasons it doesn't bother me all that much. Firstly, I think each character's action have to make sense for that character. If Snape doesn't see how his apologizing will help anyone them it make perfect sense to me for him not to apologize. Secondly, I don't think it would mean anything at all to the people hurt (at least not to Harry, maybe to some of the others). Marianne: Talk, cheap or otherwise, was evidently fine for Snape when he was spinning his tale of remorse to try to worm his way back into DD's good graces. But, for me as a reader to buy Snape's tale, I want to hear it from his own lips. I want to see him look someone in the eye who has suffered as a result of his previous actions, like bibphile: I think Snape talking to Dumbledore is different than him talking to just about anyone else would be. Convincing Dumbledore was necessary in order to accomplish any good. It was probably about more than pouring his heart out. I think that it is possible (though by no means certain) that we will see Snape's remose but if we do I think it will most likely be in a pensieve. Snape rarely shows any emotions other than other than anger, impatience, or frustration. It seems to me that he thinks wearing his emotion on his sleeve is what allowed him to be manipulated into joining the DEs. (Just to be clear, I'm not trying to absolve Snape here.) I think even if her were being completely honest about his response verbally he would still try to hide his emotions from most people. Unless of course he was pushed to the edge like we've seen him a few times then he'd probably call someone an idiot and ask why they though he was doing what he was doing. But that probably wouldn't do any good. Marianne: And, I don't think Snape finds words meaningless. He is one of the most eloquent characters in Potterverse. How powerful it would be to hear him use the same verbal grace to express his remorse. bibphile: I mean that I think he finds words easy to fake. His life is full of lies (no matter what side he is own). And I don't think Snape's eloquence extends to discussing emotions (his or anyone else's). Marianne: However, I'm inclined to agree with you that we won't hear it, not because Snape thinks actions speak louder than words. But, because I don't think Snape was remorseful to begin with. bibphile: That's certainly reasonable. I disagree. I hope I'm right because otherwise I think Snape would pretty much stop being an interesting character. bibphile From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 02:44:08 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:44:08 -0000 Subject: Is Punishment the only recompense? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140823 > Marianne: > And that is a major part of why I would find it very unsatisfying. > Whether or not Snape would find words meaningless is immaterial. > It's not about him doing as he sees fit, even if his actions are all > for the good now. To me that smacks of letting Snape off the hook, > in a sense, in that it allows him to atone in the way that he's most > comfortable with or the way he feels is best. He's not acknowledging > to the person or people whom his actions have hurt that he's sorry > for what he's done to them. > > bibphile: > I suppose there are two reasons it doesn't bother me all that much. > Firstly, I think each character's action have to make sense for that > character. If Snape doesn't see how his apologizing will help > anyone them it make perfect sense to me for him not to apologize. > Secondly, I don't think it would mean anything at all to the people > hurt (at least not to Harry, maybe to some of the others). Alla: Oh, I disagree. I think character's actions should make sense to the reader first and foremost. Of course I am talking about myself only, since for different readers characters actions make different kind of sense. I mean, it is all great to postulate that Snape IS remorseful, but how do I as reader to actually KNOW that? Many things can make sense to Snape. For example he can consider himself to be absolutely right into his dealings with Harry and Neville. Does it mean that I think he is right? Of course not. But again I am not even talking about Snape's teaching shenanigans. I am talking about one thing now for the purpose of this argument - Snape being complicit in Harry's parents death. If Snape is genuinely regretting what he did, the last thing I care about is Snape comfort level, when he apologises. I guess I even consider his apology to be the ultimate punishment for Snape. If he is WILLING to do it, if he is willing to look in the eyes of the boy , whom he helped to make an orphan and,who partially because of him is now carries the burden to destroy Voldemort ( since as we know - if Voldemort would not attacked, Harry would not have been the Chosen one) and say " I am sorry", then I believe that Snape IS sorry, otherwise I am not convinced. And of course that is not even taking into account of what happened in HBP. I also think that it would mean a lot to Harry. > Marianne: > However, I'm inclined to agree with you that we won't hear it, not > because Snape thinks actions speak louder than words. But, because I > don't think Snape was remorseful to begin with. Alla: Yes, Marianne I am inclined to agree with you. JMO, Alla From jmrazo at hotmail.com Wed Sep 28 02:45:20 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:45:20 -0000 Subject: Snape as a bully? (was Bullying was Prodigal Son) In-Reply-To: <433A8535.7411.408A79E@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140824 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" > So - that's where my perspective comes from. > > Is Snape a bully? Ooh, that is a very hard question - because like so > many others it depends a lot on the definitions that you use. > Personally, on my own definitions (and these are informed by a wide > range of formal definitions, but are also quite personal), I would > say that the adult Snape is not a bully - at least not necessarily. > To me, part of what makes somebody a bully is their motivation - a > bully bullies out of selfish self-gratification. In my view, it is > quite likely that Snape believes his behaviour in the classroom and > in the school is to the benefit of the students - some people will > disagree vehemently about whether it is or not, but even a mistaken > motivation is still a motivation. Is it a motivation or a justification? Snape could be telling himself that he is doing them a favor because he is making them tougher in order to justify his feelings of selfish self-gratification. There is plenty of precedent of those who are bullied turning around and bullying others in order to make themselves feel stronger. I have noted in the past that > Snape's actions against Neville, for example, nearly always come > immediately after Neville *has* done something wrong. They don't come > out of nowhere. True, but he bullies Harry on the first day a school pretty much in a vacuum and of course there is Hermione's teeth, his verbal insult towards neville in front of Lupin (when Nev hadn't done anything to Snape yet) and other scenes where he is clearing going for the pain for pretty much no other reason than he has the power to do it. > Snape is nasty. That doesn't make him a bully. No, the fact he's nasty to people without the power to strike back does. >> 'I don't want you to make him apologise,' Lily shouted, rounding on > James. 'You're as bad as he is.' > > Lily already regards James as an arrogant bullying toerag - saying he > is as bad as Snape, suggests that she may have similar views about > Snape. I'm always willing to believe Saint Lily, She-Without-Stink :) phoenixgod2000 From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 02:57:41 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:57:41 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140825 > >>Magda: > > > > So if Snape had been a bully, they'd have mentioned it. They > > didn't - in fact they discuss how Lupin wasn't able to stop the > > others from bugging Snape. > >>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. Betsy Hp: Well, sloppy in her usage, let's say. And really, I don't recall any canon showing Snape bullying his peers while a student at Hogwarts. Actually, everything we've been shown about his student days seems to point to him being the *bullied*. JKR could give us something in book 7 to change that view, yes. But so far she hasn't. As to Snape being a bully as a teacher.... He does show favoritism towards Slytherin, though I'm not sure I'd describe that as bullying behavior. Whenever he chastises Harry, I believe it's because he's caught Harry in some form of wrong doing. Snape is described as "bullying" Neville. But he's also described as "forcing" the students to learn antidotes. (Which is why I tend to treat any of Harry's descriptors with a grain of salt when it comes to Snape.) I think it's just as valid to describe Snape as giving Neville the personal attention he needs to get through potions that year. It's nothing Neville *enjoyed* I'm sure (redolent with sarcasm as I'm sure it was). But it wasn't necessarily bullying in the sense that it was an abuse of power. > >>Magda: > > As for the he-became-a-DE-so-he-could-bully/torture-people claim - > > again, I say nonsense. People join cults and gangs (the criminal > > kind) for all sorts of reasons, especially when you're young and > > stupid. Sirius himself - with no reason to whitewash things - says > > his parents were pro-Voldemort only at first until they realised > > what he was all about. So the idea that VOldemort was upfront and > > taking out billboard advertising about his real intentions is not > > established. > >>vmonte: > What kind of people do you suppose join the DEs (KKK,Nazis)? > Certainly not friendly type people--the kind of people that believe > in diversity and equality. And certainly not anyone I would want > teaching my child--especially when they continue to behave in an > inappropriate manner. > Betsy Hp: Hmm, but again, young!Snape doesn't come across as a bully in what we've been shown. So it seems strange to just assume that this must be why he joined the Death Eaters. What young!Snape *does* come across as is lonely. An outsider. Perfect material for any recruiter happening by. (Or at least, that's what Oprah's taught me. ) I'm sure bullies and sadists *did* join the Death Eaters to have better fodder for their tastes (see just about all the Death Eaters on the tower in HBP), but it doesn't necessarily follow that *only* bullies and sadists joined the Death Eaters. Also, you seem to be suggesting that Snape still acts like a Death Eater. Frankly, Molly Weasley seems more anti-muggle to me. Hagrid and the twins have participated in more on page muggle baiting than Snape has. (Heck, the twins nearly *killed* the muggle they baited.) Actually, Snape has *saved* more student's lives than any other teacher at Hogwarts, IIRC. Hardly Death Eater behavior, IMO. Betsy Hp From juli17 at aol.com Wed Sep 28 02:57:31 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 22:57:31 EDT Subject: Is Punishment the only recompense? (was Re: Straightforward readings) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140826 > > Marianne: > > enough that he has paid > > I've done massive snippage of Juli's comments to get to her question. > I'd be happy with Snape's genuine effort to atone with one addition. > I'd like to see him admit in actual, spoken sentences that he did has > done some bad things and is genuinely sorry. Hearing about his > remorse second-hand from Dumbledore is not enough, IMO. Maybe that's > just me as a reader wanting to see the character in question show the > emotions and thoughts that others have attributed to him. But, > without Snape actually telling/showing me himself, then I'd find the > result unsatisfying. > Julie says: The problem here is that almost every scene in the books is from Harry's POV. We've never been allowed inside Snape's head. We have the same problem when it comes to the emotional states of the other characters. We only have Harry's interpretation of those emotional states. So we're left with the only possibility being incontravertible talk/action from Snape that proves his remorse, which limits our chances of knowing his true feelings. It could certainly be done, and we may get it, but then again, we may not. Bibphile wrote: I doubt that Snapw will ever verbally apologize. I believe in DDM Snape but I think he himkself would find the words meaningless. I think he believes that the only meaningful way to show his remorse is through his actions. Talk is cheap. Julie says: I agree. Not that talk is always cheap, but that Snape won't apologize to Harry, at least not in so many words. I think Harry will learn a revelation or two about Snape, but they certainly won't come from Snape's mouth. And it will be a lot more believable to Harry that way, since why would he buy anything Snape says anyway. And actions will speak louder than words, not just whatever actions Snape may yet take to carry out Dumbledore's wishes and to help Harry defeat Voldemort, but also the actions Snape has taken in the past to keep Harry alive and to help him prepare for his final confrontation with Voldemort. This series is really all about Harry--his feelings, his perceptions, his inner growth as a person/wizard/hero. And his relationship with Snape is about Harry coming to understand the dichotomy inherent in people-- that his father could be a good, brave man but also an arrogant bully as a teenager, that Dumbledore can be a wise man but also make major mistakes, that Lupin can have his heart in the right place but be to weak to act, and that Snape can be a horrible person yet be committed to the side of good. Hmm, do I sense a pattern? Harry must ultimately recognize *all* of Snape--the man who was Dumbledore's Man through and through to perhaps even a greater extent than Harry, the man who repeatedly protected him (for whatever reason, be it a promise to DD or Lily, or something else), the man who gave him many of the tools he would need to have a chance at defeating Voldemort (whether it was done begrudgingly or not), AS WELL AS the man who held onto childish, pointless grudges, who made prejudicial judgments based on those grudges, who was a mean and at times abusive teacher, and who was in many ways a very horrible person in his relations to others. A man he has never liked and never will like, and whose death he certainly isn't going to cry over, but a man who chose to make serious personal sacrifices to atone for his past sins when he could have easily chosen otherwise. A man who did his share of harm, but who also did good, perhaps enough good in the end to earn forgiveness. My personal feeling is that this would be enough for Harry. And it would be enough for me. Julie (assuming DDsMan!Snape throughout this post--as if you couldn't tell!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 03:24:27 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 03:24:27 -0000 Subject: Bullying/Snape and Neville and a bit of Harry too In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140827 >> Betsy Hp: > Well, sloppy in her usage, let's say. And really, I don't recall > any canon showing Snape bullying his peers while a student at > Hogwarts. Alla: Well, canon does show us Snape inventing " means" erm... curses, which are quite useful for bullying, IMO. Betsy: Whenever he chastises Harry, I believe it's because he's > caught Harry in some form of wrong doing. Alla: Especially on their first lesson. Betsy Hp: I think it's just as valid to describe Snape as > giving Neville the personal attention he needs to get through potions > that year. It's nothing Neville *enjoyed* I'm sure (redolent with > sarcasm as I'm sure it was). But it wasn't necessarily bullying in > the sense that it was an abuse of power. Alla: Oh, personall attention in a sense of turning Neville away from Potions forever? I think it was Amiable Dorsai who so eloquently said that because of Snape Neville has no hope of advancing in the subject which is closely related to his best subject. Ir is so convenient to assume that Neville is indeed hopeless in potions, isn't it? Then Snape sure can feel justified in doing what he does to poor boy and in the process shatterring his self-esteem to pieces. I think that it is a reasonable assumption to make that since Potions and Herbology ARE related ( you know - Potions made of Plants for the most part), Neville may have loved the Potions and would have done quite well in hem if only he had a different type of teacher teaching them. I used to think that Snape's biggest sin in relation to Neville is the fact that he became the boy's biggest fear, but now I think that it is the fact that he may have stopped Neville's professional development in that field of study forever. JMO of course, Alla. From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Sep 28 03:35:16 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 03:35:16 -0000 Subject: Not a Dark Mark ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140828 Ceridwen: > > Draco doesn't change, he perhaps > gets a taste for more red meat but that's about it, and permanent > scarring. houyhnhnm: He sure doesn't look like he has a taste for red meat throughout most of HBP. He is increasingly sickly and anemic looking. He has "a distinctly grayish tinge to his skin", "dark shadows under his eyes". He seems to be losing weight (though I can't find the exact quote--maybe it was just in my own imagination.) It really sounds like he wasn't getting enough red meat. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 03:41:31 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 03:41:31 -0000 Subject: UV = DDM? (was:Re: OFH! Snape again. WAS: Straightforward readings? In-Reply-To: <001e01c5c3d0$a4b81af0$b724f204@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140829 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Of course Dumbledore didn't *choose* to die! He destroyed the > > ring horcrux and was mortally wounded as a result. > > > > No, Dumbledore didn't choose death, but when it came he did > > choose to not freeze in the face of it and to make sure his death > > was meaningful. > >>Sherry: > I can't find anything meaningful in Dumbledore's death. > Betsy Hp: The death itself is not meaningful, of course. I didn't phrase that well. But Dumbledore *is* dying, IMO. He was dying the entire year. Now, he could have retired to the Bahamas and died peacefully on the beach. He could have loaded himself down with explosives and stormed Voldemort's lair (assuming Voldemort *has* a lair) and gone out in a blaze of glory. *Or* he could make sure that his death puts Snape as close to Voldemort as he could possibly get, thereby helping Harry achieve victory (and, you know, live to talk about it). > >>Sherry: > I am never resigned to death and never think it's a good thing. > Betsy Hp: That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I don't think Dumbledore was *resigned* to death. He didn't *fear* it though. As his end speech in PS/SS made clear. And there is a difference. > >>Sherry: > I don't necessarily believe Dumbledore was either dying from the > injury to his hand or the potion in the cave. Betsy Hp: Well, that blows my entire theory. But, I'm curious, why do you suppose Dumbledore was in such a rush throughout HBP? And why did he have a peaceful look on his face at the end. If his trusted friend had betrayed him, don't you think he should have had a look of deep sadness? > >>Sherry: > > It doesn't help to have Snape be firmly seen to be in Voldemort's > camp, because nobody will believe a word that comes out of his > mouth now. Betsy Hp: Draco might. And Harry may well believe Draco if he shows up with some important information. Or, if a bumblebee patronis suddenly shows up with some important information, Harry might believe that. Or maybe no information will show up but when Voldemort moves in for the kill his most trusted Death Eater may stab him in the back. Or maybe Harry will receive something from Dumbledore (letter, bottled memory) proving once and for all that Snape is a good guy. (Though frankly the last option seems too clearcut, IMO. Where's the drama? Where's the angst?) There are a number of advantages to having a trusted man very, very close to your enemy. Dumbledore, I'm sure, is aware of many of them. > >>Sherry: > And even if they could be convinced, how on earth is having Snape > close to Voldemort more important than having Dumbledore alive, > the only wizard that Voldemort ever feared. Betsy Hp: It's not. I've never suggested Dumbledore committed suicide. I've suggested that Dumbledore sustained a mortal injury, realized he was dying and manuvered things so that his death would not be competely without use. (It's like in Aliens, when that soldier chick is mortally wounded so she sets off that grenade when all the baby aliens are on her so her crew can get away.) > >>Sherry: > We lose one great weapon for a not so great and not very wise > replacement. It just doesn't make sense to me. I suppose that is > because I cannot fathom the death ever making sense. > Betsy Hp: Of course Dumbledore's death doesn't "make sense". Dumbledore should have lived for many, many, more years. But Dumbledore chose to take part in a war. He chose to destroy Voldemort's ring horcrux. And I believe he sustained a mortal wound. Through Snape's skill as a healer, and Dumbledore's own power, Dumbledore managed to buy himself a year. A year during which he put things into as much order as he could. And even while dying (I seriously doubt the poison he drank in the cave helped matters) Dumbledore managed to save Draco and possibly (I think probably) Snape. And I think he managed to put Snape into a position where he could most help Harry (and Draco too, for that matter) and therefore the Order and the WW. Dumbledore managed to make his *life* meaningful right up to the very moment he died. Not a bad eulogy, IMO. (Heck of a lot better than, "Dumbledore - kinda of a trusting fool, really.") Betsy Hp (who's on her fourth post, but couldn't help trying to clarify) From drednort at alphalink.com.au Wed Sep 28 04:02:47 2005 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:02:47 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape as a bully? (was Bullying was Prodigal Son) In-Reply-To: References: <433A8535.7411.408A79E@localhost> Message-ID: <433AA287.22897.47B2EF4@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 140830 On 28 Sep 2005 at 2:45, phoenixgod2000 wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" > > So - that's where my perspective comes from. > > Is Snape a bully? > Ooh, that is a very hard question - because like so > many others it > depends a lot on the definitions that you use. > Personally, on my own > definitions (and these are informed by a wide > range of formal > definitions, but are also quite personal), I would > say that the > adult Snape is not a bully - at least not necessarily. > To me, part > of what makes somebody a bully is their motivation - a > bully bullies > out of selfish self-gratification. In my view, it is > quite likely > that Snape believes his behaviour in the classroom and > in the school > is to the benefit of the students - some people will > disagree > vehemently about whether it is or not, but even a mistaken > > motivation is still a motivation. > > Is it a motivation or a justification? Snape could be telling himself > that he is doing them a favor because he is making them tougher in > order to justify his feelings of selfish self-gratification. There is > plenty of precedent of those who are bullied turning around and > bullying others in order to make themselves feel stronger. It's motivation, in my view, rather than justification for the very simple reason that the action, in most cases, comes in clear response to a stimulus. Neville is the student who we see as the greatest target of Snape's wrath. I've analysed Snape's interactions with Neville in detail (up until HBP - I need to look at that again) and the incidents generally come after Neville has done something wrong. There is a trigger incident. If Snape was just going back to find an excuse after he'd done it, that would be justification. If he is reacting to something genuine, it's not just justification. And if all Snape wants to do is bully students, he doesn't need any justification to do it. As you point out a little later, the power in this situation is with Snape - the students do not have the power to counter him. And so he doesn't need a justification for what he does, because there is nobody for him to justify it to. He doesn't need to justify it to himself - and a bully will not do so under normal circumstances. > I have noted in the past that > > Snape's actions against Neville, for example, nearly always come > > immediately after Neville *has* done something wrong. They don't > come > > out of nowhere. > > True, but he bullies Harry on the first day a school pretty much in a > vacuum and of course there is Hermione's teeth, his verbal insult > towards neville in front of Lupin (when Nev hadn't done anything to > Snape yet) and other scenes where he is clearing going for the pain > for pretty much no other reason than he has the power to do it. Case by case - No, he didn't bully Harry in a vacuum. We didn't know why he was acting that way towards Harry at the time, but we have since learned a lot of background to Snape's attitudes towards Harry's father. That makes Harry an unusual case - but also may speak to motivation if Snape believes Harry is likely to be like his father, he may well believe that he needs to step on him hard. Is he right to do so? Probably not. Motivations aren't always correct - but it is easy to see a clear motivation for Snape's behaviour. Hermione's teeth - that one I totally disagree with. Snape acted completely and utterly inappropriately on that occasion, in my view. But one incident of utterly inappropriate behaviour does not make someone a bully. With regards to Neville, no, Neville hadn't done anything at the time, this is true. But Neville does have a history of making elementary mistakes in Snape's classes and they have just had a class. I don't approve of what Snape does here, by any means, but I can certainly believe he still had Neville's class behaviour well in mind. I also don't see these scenes where he is 'going for the pain for pretty much no other reason than he has the power to do it'. I think he may have a reason - a belief that this is the way to teach students. > > Snape is nasty. That doesn't make him a bully. > > No, the fact he's nasty to people without the power to strike back > does. No, that wouldn't make him a bully. The target's power to resist is irrelevant to whether or not somebody is a bully or not. I was bullied a lot when I was at school, and I generally did have the power to resist what they were doing. I chose not to, but that's another matter. A bully will often choose somebody who is powerless as their target - but that doesn't make the disparity in power the reason the person is a bully. James and Sirius bully Snape - and he certainly does have the power to resist them. He tries to draw his wand, and ultimately he even wounds James. The fact he can resist doesn't make them any less bullies. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 04:16:55 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 04:16:55 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140831 Betsy wrote: Hmm, but again, young!Snape doesn't come across as a bully in what we've been shown. So it seems strange to just assume that this must be why he joined the Death Eaters. What young!Snape *does* come across as is lonely. An outsider. Perfect material for any recruiter happening by. (Or at least, that's what Oprah's taught me. ) I'm sure bullies and sadists *did* join the Death Eaters to have better fodder for their tastes (see just about all the Death Eaters on the tower in HBP), but it doesn't necessarily follow that *only* bullies and sadists joined the Death Eaters. vmonte: But he is a bully and a sadist according to canon, therefore he is the perfect recruit. He was probably never recruited anyway, he probably enlisted himself. By the way, Tom Riddle is also a loner, outsider, sadist, and bully. Betsy: Also, you seem to be suggesting that Snape still acts like a Death Eater. Frankly, Molly Weasley seems more anti-muggle to me. Hagrid and the twins have participated in more on page muggle baiting than Snape has. (Heck, the twins nearly *killed* the muggle they baited.) Actually, Snape has *saved* more student's lives than any other teacher at Hogwarts, IIRC. Hardly Death Eater behavior, IMO. vmonte: Here we go again. Face it Betsy, you and I are not reading the same books. I'm sure that Molly and the twins don't represent the enemy to JKR either. Vivian Keep Dreaming From kjones at telus.net Wed Sep 28 05:27:12 2005 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 22:27:12 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Not a Dark Mark ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <433A29B0.70005@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 140832 houyhnhnm102 wrote: > houyhnhnm: He is increasingly sickly and anemic looking. He has "a > distinctly grayish tinge to his skin", "dark shadows under his eyes". > He seems to be losing weight (though I can't find the exact > quote--maybe it was just in my own imagination.) KJ writes: The description sounds rather suspiciously similar to how Lupin was described. It could be that stress, or emotional distress aggravates the other signs or symptoms. KJ From kjones at telus.net Wed Sep 28 05:59:56 2005 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 22:59:56 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] UV = DDM? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <433A315C.4010908@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 140833 horridporrid03 wrote: > Betsy Hp: > > Dumbledore is interested in two things, IMO. One (and I believe > this is canon) is saving Draco, both morally and physically, from > Voldemort. Second is somehow tying the Malfoys to the Order's > side. Not necessarily getting the Malfoys to *join* the Order, mind > you. Just obligated somehow. > he gets a chance. By this time Dumbledore has been injured (I > believe fatally) and has already planned for Snape to remain only > one more year at Hogwarts. (Hence his giving Snape the DADA > position and his requiring not only a Potions Master but a > replacement Slytherin head.) Dumbledore, aware that he's dying, > incorporates the terms of the Vow into his end game plan. Snape > will not only need to be *present* at Dumbledore's death, he must > have a hand in it. Snape's life depends on it. And Dumbledore's > final plan depends on Snape being alive. > Betsy Hp Kathy writes: In my humble opinion a greater consideration of Dumbledore's character and behaviour is in order. There is much information about DD which is glossed over and taken at face value with very little "wait a minute" being expressed by the list. Consider the fact that both DD and Voldemort knew about the prophesy and both were scouring the WW looking for the same "one with the power to defeat the dark lord." Voldemort has been powerful and dangerous for eleven years already. DD has been actively fighting Voldemort and was watching him for decades prior to the prophesy. Voldemort intends to kill the child when he is found. DD has his own plans for the child when he is found. Dumbledore is totally focussed on ridding the WW of Voldemorte. He knew that Voldemort would rise again, and he had his weapon close at hand. He admits himself that his plan required him not to care about Harry. To his credit, he failed in this. To his discredit, he tuned it out and proceeded with his plan anyway. He can be as snarky as Snape when he feels that Harry is not applying himself to aquiring Slughorn's memories. I thought that was terrible, and points out how obsessed DD is with defeating Voldemort. He ceased to care about Hogwarts in his determination to deactivate horcruxes. He uses Harry as a lure to draw out Voldemort, first in PS/SS and again in OotP. I suspect that he had Snape teach Harry Occlumency to increase the contact with Voldemort. The plan worked, and Voldemort was drawn out to the MoM. Dumbledore sacrificed Snape to the DADA curse to bring Slughorn back. He needed those memories to determine how many horcruxes he was looking for. He also needed Harry to take Potions, not because he cared about Harry's future, but because he needed Slughorn under pressure. Dumbledore forced Harry to vow that he would pour the potion in the cave down his throat if necessary. He told Harry that it wouldn't kill him immediately, intimating that it would kill him eventually. He did not care about the emotional damage to Harry as long as he obtained the horcrux. Perhaps the anger and revulsion on Snape's face was an indication of how he felt to discover that Dumbledore cared nothing for him either other than a tool to do his bidding. By killing Dumbledore, he placed himself completely beyond aid, lost his home of fifteen years, all of his possessions, whatever respect he had managed to earn, any kind of a future, and perhaps the only person he had considered a friend and mentor. Sacrificed to Dumbledore's grand plan. I don't think that DD cared anything for Draco. I think he was just stalling until Snape arrived on the scene. DD would have kept them talking as long as possible in the hope of setting Snape into position. There was very little time lost once that ocurred. The peaceful look on DD's face is an indication to me that he died satisfied that all of the chess pieces were in place and obedient to his wishes. KJ From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Sep 28 06:28:54 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 06:28:54 -0000 Subject: Who is RAB again. WAS:Re: Snape and Regulus/OFH!Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140834 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jajaredor" wrote: > Amontillada: > > > > > I agree that Regulus is a likely candidate for RAB, but I still > > suspect that he's a false lead precisely because he's such an > obvious > > candidate. I foresee about two years of fertile speculation! Jaja: > I really believe that R.A.B. stands for Regulus Arcturus Black. I > remember reading once that in deutsch, black is zwarts but this > hasn't been proved yet because I don't have a copy of the book in > deutsch version. so if RAB is really Regulus then the initials in the > deutsch version would be RAZ. Geoff: I haven't spent time in speculating on the mysterious RAB but might add two quick thoughts. (1) Just for accuracy, the German equivalent of Black is Schwarz. Zwart or zwarts is Dutch. Even so, I doubt whether the German version would translate a surname. Has Sirius' family name been translated in the earlier books? (2) With suggestions such as "Remember Amelia Bones" being made, why would someone leaving a note for Voldemort use a set of initials which were not those of their name? Also, why would Voldemort recognise references to Amelia Bones - has she had dealing with him in the past? Surely whoever left the note had initials which would be immediately recognised by him - and the note reveals it was someone who also knew a bout the Horcrux setup. From Nanagose at aol.com Wed Sep 28 07:36:59 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 07:36:59 -0000 Subject: Who is RAB again. WAS:Re: Snape and Regulus/OFH!Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140835 > Geoff: > (1) Just for accuracy, the German equivalent of Black is Schwarz. > Zwart or zwarts is Dutch. Even so, I doubt whether the German > version would translate a surname. Has Sirius' family name been > translated in the earlier books? Christina: As much fun as I've been having speculating on who RAB is, I've always just figured that we'll find out soon enough, since the translations should tell us pretty clearly whether or not we're right about the Regulus Black guess. >From what I've seen floating around the Internet about HP translations, most names have been translated in most editions, including "Black" (which makes sense when you think about the meaning behind Sirius's name). Here is the list of translations for "Sirius Black" that HP uses, according to answers.com, * Dutch: Sirius Zwarts * Finnish: Sirius Musta * German: Sirius Schwarz(book I)/Sirius Black(book III-V) * Indonesian: Sirius Black * Latvian: Siriuss Bleks * Norwegian: Sirius Svaart * Polish: Syriusz Black * Welsh: Siriws Ddu (the Greek and Russian characters weren't supported by Yahoo!, so the link to the site is below if you're interested) I should note, though, that according to another site (http://www.eulenfeder.de/int/gbint.html), the Polish translation of "Sirius Black" is "Syriusz Czarny." I can't find anything listed for Regulus (he was too obscure a character before HBP to merit a place on a list of translated HP names, I guess), but someone who has the HP books in translation would certainly be able to check. According to this list, the Dutch, Finnish, Greek, Norwegian, and Welsh translations would feature a Regulus Black whose last initial would NOT be "B." The Dutch and Norwegian translations (according to Veritaserum.com) come out on November 19th. Is there anyone that will be getting a copy of either of these? I am confident that if RAB *is* Regulus Black, the translations will give us initials that correspond to whatever "Regulus Black" translates into. According to the Eulenfeder.de link I posted above, "Tom Marvolo Riddle" was translated in other editions so that his name would still give an anagram of a sentence along the lines of "I am Lord Voldemort." I'm sure JKR figured on the translation issue when she wrote the book, and either just accepted that we would figure out who RAB was, or made the initials so obscure (ala "Remember Amelia Bones") that we couldn't guess even with the translated copies. Anyway, for anyone that's curious, the full answers.com article can be found by going to the main site and typing "List of characters in translations of Harry Potter" in the search engine (I think the actual information comes from Wikipedia though). I have no idea how accurate it is, but it's really fun to look over (especially the TMR/LV anagrams). Christina From silmariel at telefonica.net Wed Sep 28 08:21:57 2005 From: silmariel at telefonica.net (silmariel) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:21:57 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: RAB In-Reply-To: <20050927234933.42152.qmail@web32615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050927234933.42152.qmail@web32615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200509281021.57009.silmariel@telefonica.net> No: HPFGUIDX 140836 Mira: > 10. RAB = something to do with Andromeda (formerly > Black, if I am not mistaken, but do let me know if I > am). I like this one: Rasalhage Andromeda Black http://domeofthesky.com/clicks/rasalhague.html Rasalhague, alternatively Ras Alhague, derives from the Arabic name for this star, Al Ras al Hawwa, "The Head of the Serpent-Charmer." Silmariel From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Sep 28 09:47:19 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:47:19 -0000 Subject: Who is RAB again. WAS:Re: Snape and Regulus/OFH!Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140837 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spotsgal" wrote: > Christina: > > * Dutch: Sirius Zwarts > * Finnish: Sirius Musta > * German: Sirius Schwarz(book I)/Sirius Black(book III-V) > * Indonesian: Sirius Black > * Latvian: Siriuss Bleks > * Norwegian: Sirius Svaart > * Polish: Syriusz Black > * Welsh: Siriws Ddu Hickengruendler: Sirius' name is Sirius Black in the German editions as well. It isn't translated in any book, including the first one. It once was in the earlier editions of book 1, but once it became clear, that he's a major character (in other words, after book 3) his name was changed back to Sirius Black in the first book as well. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 10:27:18 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 03:27:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050928102718.25137.qmail@web53111.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140838 > 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. > 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. Magda __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Sep 28 10:50:31 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:50:31 -0000 Subject: Who is RAB again. WAS:Re: Snape and Regulus/OFH!Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140839 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spotsgal" wrote: Christina: > I should note, though, that according to another site > (http://www.eulenfeder.de/int/gbint.html), the Polish translation of > "Sirius Black" is "Syriusz Czarny." > > I can't find anything listed for Regulus (he was too obscure a > character before HBP to merit a place on a list of translated HP > names, I guess), but someone who has the HP books in translation would > certainly be able to check. > > According to this list, the Dutch, Finnish, Greek, Norwegian, and > Welsh translations would feature a Regulus Black whose last initial > would NOT be "B." The Dutch and Norwegian translations (according to > Veritaserum.com) come out on November 19th. Is there anyone that will > be getting a copy of either of these? > > I am confident that if RAB *is* Regulus Black, the translations will > give us initials that correspond to whatever "Regulus Black" > translates into. According to the Eulenfeder.de link I posted above, > "Tom Marvolo Riddle" was translated in other editions so that his name > would still give an anagram of a sentence along the lines of "I am > Lord Voldemort." Geoff: This fascinates me because one of my interests has always been linguistics - especially the links between languages. In passing, I hope you realise that "eulenfeder" is the German for "owl's feather". The Swedish version is intriguing in that they give "I am Lord Voldemort" in Latin(!) - Ego sum Lord Voldemort - and thus his name in Swedish includes the middle name of "Gus". How can you seriously swear allegiance to a megalomaniac Dark Lord called Gus? :-) The trouble with translations is that the word plays of the original are lost so the subtleties of such as Diagon Alley, Knockturn Alley, Durmstrang and Pensieve cannot be appreciated in the foreign editions. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Sep 28 11:53:50 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:53:50 -0000 Subject: UV = DDM? (was:Re: OFH! Snape again. WAS: Straightforward readings? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140840 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > >>Betsy Hp: So, Dumbledore tells Snape that he's going to allow Draco a bit of a free rein during the school year (the freedom to choose is essential to Draco's moral salvation per Dumbledore's personal code). > > > >>Phoenixgod: > > Don't get me started on how stupid this was as a plan. Sure, lets have an mildly competent assassin running around the school. Great idea! Pippin: This is what makes me think Dumbledore must have known about the third provision of Snape's vow. He says he didn't intervene because Draco would be killed, but since he had a plan to save Draco, that can't be the only reason. However, if he knew that the vow would take effect if it "seems as if Draco will fail," then he would have had to weigh certain death for Snape or himself against the distant (to him) possibility that Draco might actually succeed. *Anyone* could have sent Slughorn a bottle of poisoned mead, and *anyone* could have given a booby-trapped package to a student. Allowing Draco his freedom exposed weaknesses which a more competent assassin would have exploited to greater effect, giving Dumbledore an opportunity to shore up the school's defenses. I don't think Dumbledore was dying all year -- but what if there was unicorn blood in the green goo? Would he want to live if he'd had to drink that? Pippin From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 11:48:23 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:48:23 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140841 > zgirnius: Harry is especially upset by what he sees > as James attacking Snape for no good reason. he specifically brings > this concern up for Sirius and Lupin. "nut he just attacked Snape for > no good reason, just because-well, just because you said you were > bored". > > If there were some excellent reasons for James to dislike Snape, > wouldn't it have made sense to bring it up here? But no, the reasons Finwitch: No, I don't think so. Harry said: "for no good reason," did he not? And let's not forget the Pettigrew-business in the Shack. And that Crouch authorised Aurors to use Unforgivables, put Sirius to jail without a trial... In addition, Harry's under such an ordeal having his word doubted, they may need to break off the discussion very fast... No, going to the playground 'who started it' just isn't a good option. It's who stopped it that matters. And as Harry's supposed to take Occlumency from Snape, it's NOT a good idea to tell him all the bad things Snape did in school, seeing as Harry's not in a good relationship with Snape as it is... So no - they just tell him that 'James grew out of it.' Quite apparently, Snape has not. Just look at what Snape does in the Shrieking Shack! At least Lupin acted maturedly most of time - and I've always been of the opinion that Snape as adult has been constantly acting like a teenager. (and he doesn't have hormonal disbalance like the REAL teens do, so...) Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 12:16:28 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:16:28 -0000 Subject: Who is RAB again. WAS:Re: Snape and Regulus/OFH!Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140842 > Geoff: > This fascinates me because one of my interests has always been > linguistics - especially the links between languages. -- > The trouble with translations is that the word plays of the original > are lost so the subtleties of such as Diagon Alley, Knockturn Alley, > Durmstrang and Pensieve cannot be appreciated in the foreign > editions. Finwitch: I am fascinated on the linguistics as well. The 'lost in translation' - is one of the reasons why I prefer to read the books in English. Another is plainly and simply that doing so helps me learn-or keep up the language. Mind you, when I began, I read first and fourth in Finnish and second and third in Swedish... (first actual books I read in Swedish, BTW. I was pleased to notice I actually DID recall enough of that to be able to). I don't know how the R.A.B. will come up once the translation is done... if it was Regulus , it ought to say R.A.M. in Finnish, no doubt. I think Rowling is quite busy answering what the 'B.' stands for to translators who need to know... Finwitch From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Sep 28 12:35:47 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:35:47 -0000 Subject: Bullying/Snape and Neville and a bit of Harry too In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140843 > Alla: > > Oh, personall attention in a sense of turning Neville away from > Potions forever? I think it was Amiable Dorsai who so eloquently > said that because of Snape Neville has no hope of advancing in the > subject which is closely related to his best subject. Pippin: Now this is a stretch, IMO. There are loads of people who love gardening but hate to cook. I'm sure there are plenty of opportunities for herbologists that don't involve NEWT class potion-making. We can't even say that Neville's lack of NEWT classes in potion making kept him from becoming an Auror, because he wasn't able to progress in transfiguration either. Pippin From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Sep 28 12:37:41 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:37:41 -0000 Subject: Is Bella the keeper of a Horcrux? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140844 Neri wrote: >snip< > Now, Lucius *is* part of the context, and Lucius *was* entrusted with > guarding a Hx, while Snape apparently wasn't. So was Bella about to > brag that she was entrusted with another Hx before cutting herself > short? Maybe the Hufflepuff Cup? Of course, she said "in the past" so > perhaps she meant she's no longer entrusted with it, but she might > have an idea where it is now. Potioncat: I think you're right. I snipped the part about Draco "seeing" it, but that's a strong possibility too. Now, another question might be: could she have had the locket at one time? Hmm...maybe we should look at the timeline and see if Bella delayed in delivering the horcrux? ;-) From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Sep 28 13:13:34 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:13:34 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: <20050927223506.33686.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140845 > > Alla: > > > > They do mention that Snape never lost a chance to hex James. It is > > good enough for me. > Magda: > That was after sixth year, not in the years preceding. Valky: I believe, Magda, that you are mistaken in claiming this is absolute canon. Lupin does not say specifically "...as of then Snape started Hexing James at every opportunity", he says Snape "never" lost and opportunity to hex James. 'Never' meaning - not ever; at no time in the past or future, cannot be construed to indicate a specific period of time without explicit identification of that period. To say, that Lupin is referring only to Snapes actions as of sixth year, is speculation, albeit fairly well based. IMO, Alla has the right interpretation of it. Snape was a special case in James life, their animosity was mutual, and Sirius argues strongly in POA for the case that Snape managed, intentionally, to be malignant toward the Marauders in general during their school years. The simplest straightforward read of this set of variable things (including POA with OOtP) is that Snape was *not* entirely a nice innocent boy who would never have done harm if the bad spoiled Marauders hadn't tortured him constantly for 'obviously' spurious reasons. It's that Snape had, has and always will have a nasty, dangerous mean streak, of sadism, if you will. May I politely suggest that perhaps your own interpretation is slightly coloured by a determination to believe that Snape is an angel? > > Magda: > > > > So the idea that VOldemort was upfront and taking > > > out billboard advertising about his real intentions is not > > > established. > > > > > > Alla: > > > > What kind of "good intentions" could exist for joining Voldemort? > > I am curious now. > > Magda: > Don't misquote me. I never said "good intentions". I said that > young people often join gangs (criminal ones) and cults for all > kinds of reasons - and they do. And we have Sirius' comment that > people thought Voldemort had the "right idea" at first, and that > even his family - who he has no incentive to excuse for anything - > backed away once they realized what he was really all about. > Valky: If I am reading your meaning correctly Magda, then this reasoning clashes with the assumption that Snape calling Lily 'Mudblood' in the pensieve was out of character. You say yourself, the Blacks though LV had the right idea, so he did to some degree advertise his intentions as a purebloodist vindicator. I think it's either Snape was or he wasn't buying into the purebloodist agenda, but I don't think it can be both. Out of curiousity do you read the insult in the pensieve as evidence that Snape has pureblood prejudice, or do you buy into other theories which explain why he doesn't? OTOH I think the reason/s that Snape joined the DE's are fairly logically given. Voldemort had power, knowledge and no fear of the Dark Arts, I think we are definitely beyond arguing that this would not appeal to canon Snape. It would. Other factors most likely played a part in his choice such as he wasn't popular in the general graduating community, he already had friends involved with DE and Voldemort - these things would certainly open the door for him into the DE world, but I think they are peripheral and his main interest in it, what his older friends probably used to sell the DE to him, and what he thought he would find in Voldemorts following, was the freedom to explore, practise and discover the secrets of his most favourite and beloved subject. the reasons for him leaving the DE's are less clear, and it is those I think we should wonder about the most. JKR has warned us in interview to be aware, Snape was a Death Eater, and it is given there that he has done some awful things in his life. 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? 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. I think that Vivian and I are alike in reading Snape as essentially the same person throughout it all, and I agree with Vivian on that because I think JKR also builds her characters upon this philosophy. 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. As a schoolboy he followed the Marauders around spied on them, and according to Sirius, enjoyed finding out things about them that could get them in trouble. He never missed an oportunity to hex James Potter. As a DE he spied on Dumbledore looking for ways to make trouble for Dumbledores Order of the Phoenix. We really shouldn't rule out that he hurt people here too. As a teacher he follows Harry around, and up until very recently he enjoyed equally being able to catch Harry doing something out of line that would get him into trouble. He also seems to have gotten pleasure out of hurting Harry. The nasty cruel streak is consistent in his personality. This is who he is, who he chooses to be. I don't find it hard to believe that Snape might have gone in for bullying at some other time in his life. Either as a DE or as part of the Slytherin crowd he has the makings of someone who would enjoy bullying. Of course that doesn't mean that he *was* a bully kid. Although I don't agree, really, its a valid speculation, IMO. But I don't know for sure that it would become canon. Valky From dave100941 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 04:12:17 2005 From: dave100941 at yahoo.com (Dave) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:12:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Werewolf Bites Message-ID: <20050928041218.5661.qmail@web60321.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140846 While rereading SS, Chapter 13 "Nicholas Flamel," I found the following in the last paragraph on p 220 of my US edition: "The next morning in Defense against the Dark Arts, while copying down different ways of treating werewolf bites, Harry and Ron were still discussing ...." If first year students are taught several treatment methods, why is everyone so afraid of Grayback and why is everyone so concerned and worried about Bill Weasley's injuries? Is the preceding a Flint? Comments anyone. Dave --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hubbada at unisa.ac.za Wed Sep 28 07:03:04 2005 From: hubbada at unisa.ac.za (deborahhbbrd) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 07:03:04 -0000 Subject: Who is RAB again (WAS: Re: Snape and Regulus/OFH!Snape) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140847 jajaredor, on the Subject of: Who is RAB again (WAS: Re: Snape and Regulus/OFH!Snape), suggests that: < I remember reading once that in deutsch, black is zwarts but this hasn't been proved yet because I don't have a copy of the book in deutsch version. so if RAB is really Regulus then the initials in the deutsch version would be RAZ. (This, in support of the RAB = Regulus Arcturus Black theory).> Deborah, now: Good thinking, just mildly flawed ... ! On a technicality, and to minimise hopeless quests, Deutsch = German, where black, or Black, is Schwartz. RAS, therefore ... As it would also be in Afrikaans. However, in Dutch the initials would certainly be RAZ. Three fruitful fields for research! Are these translations out yet? After all, wasn't it the Portuguese translator who had to know the sex of Prof Sinistra, and thus clarified for all of us that she's a she? Any language which didn't use the B initial for the Blacks would do, in fact - what fun! Polyglots of the Potterverse, unite! You have nothing to lose but your speculations! Deborah, frustrated not to have access to any translations right now From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Sep 28 13:37:51 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:37:51 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140848 Betsy Hp: *(snip)* >Whenever he chastises Harry, I believe it's because he's > caught Harry in some form of wrong doing. > > Snape is described as "bullying" Neville. But he's also described > as "forcing" the students to learn antidotes. (Which is why I tend > to treat any of Harry's descriptors with a grain of salt when it > comes to Snape.) Ceridwen: First, I haven't read PS/SS in a long time. The youngest sold it at a yard sale. It was hers, *right*? Second, I didn't catch onto the Harry-centric focus for a while. Someone mentioned that the narrative seems to step outside of Harry more often in the first couple or three books, describing him even though he probably wouldn't bother to look at himself at that moment. And, PS/SS begins completely objective. I was a bit confuzzled. Third, I haven't studied anything about voice in narration in a long time, so I'll just muddle through this using the best descriptors I can. Sorry if it hinders, I hope it won't! IIRC, Harry was warned about Snape before he ever met him. I think it was Ron who mentioned something about him being a former DE. If not, it was Percy. Either way, Harry was already disposed against Snape before they met. I hoped, reading as an adult, that Harry would discount what he'd heard and make a seperate judgement. Mistaking the Harrycentric narrative for something more objective, I thought the reader would at least get some unbiased information. My mistake in the voice of the narrative went with me into that first Potions class. I *liked* what I heard in the opening speech. It seemed to me that here was a teacher who really loved his subject. I was brutally shocked, meaning I was thrown out of the narrative, when the narrative itself didn't like him. That didn't make sense to me. It seemed that the narration was actively trying to influence my feelings as a reader. Then, for some inexplicable reason, this teacher decided to focus on Our Hero, unfairly, I thought, since it was, after all, the first lesson. How on earth could he know what wormwood and asphodel would do? It wasn't like his Muggle aunt made it regularily in her kitchen! And so, I was seduced into the Harrycentric POV. I went along, thinking as the narrative instructed, that Snape was trying for the PS. Poor old Quirrel! And, that awful Potions Master made Harry's scar hurt, too. It must be true that he was a DE. He probably still retained sympathies. When we reached the end, and found that Snape had been trying to save Harry at the Quidditch match, and that it was poor old bullied Quirrel who was really the villain of the piece, I was miffed at the narrative, and by extension the author, for not showing me things I needed to see. I still hadn't gotten into the idea of a Harrycentric viewpoint. By book 2, I was mistrustful of the major POV. I got it that we were in Harry's head, seeing things he saw, and being described the things he felt. Harrycentric is not omniscient. Still, I took certain things at face value. Going back to PS/SS, I thought I would like to be a student in Potions. Thinking back to all of the encounters between Snape and Harry, Neville, Hermione, and Ron, and willing myself back to that first impression, I'm beginning to see something that a thoroughly objective narrative might have mentioned, but since we only get Harry's impressions, it never does - Harry and Ron might just be some disruptive students. Ron made a comment in CoS, I believe it was, that they had better things to do in Potions than listen to Snape. !?! Better things to do in class than listen to the teacher? If I'd been even a vaguely serious student in Potions, I might not have appreciated having them in my class. I know they were busy focusing on defeating ESE!Snape in PS/SS, and figuring out what was going on with the petrifications in CoS. But, class time is for learning. If they were doing anything else, I can certainly understand Snape riding them about their lessons. I can understand him not caring for Neville blowing things up and melting cauldrons. I can understand him ignoring the Know-It-All's constantly raised hand, and she tipped herself off by knowing about wormwood and asphodel in the first lesson - not even the students who had been raised in the WW were offering to answer. We're only treated to Harry's take on things. Defeating LV, in any shape or form, is the point of the books, and of Harry's existence. We understand it. We're in his head. But being in his head, we don't see how he and his friends come off from the outside. I've had twinges of this during the serial. McGonagall said something about assigning homework anyway, despite the Grave Threat We're All Under. So it isn't just Snape noticing that they're not paying attention in class. And, they may be disrupting other students. We don't know, because Harry doesn't realize it if it's happening. Like my youngest playing her radio too loud - I'm sure the neighbors hear it, but she claims she needs it up that loud to hear. Yes, her hearing's normal. It's her POV that's skewed. *Harry* thinks Snape is bullying him, so that's what we think. We can't get an objective view, since when Harry is in the scene, we're in his head. There is very little in the serial that doesn't involve Harry seeing, hearing and doing. Only a few chapters, like the beginning of PS/SS, GoF, and now, HBP. Even when the narration steps out of his head in order to describe a flush on his cheeks, we don't go very far, and it doesn't last very long. I am no longer convinced that Snape is bullying anyone. I am convinced that this is how Harry perceives it. This is how we're shown it. This is what we come away with. The change I think it was Betsy mentioning, when Harry tells Snape that he doesn't have to call him `sir', and the immediate change in the narrative perception of Snape after that, is a point in favor, and part of what made me think of this in relation to the bullying threads. I'm sorry this is so long! I just want to say that what we see of Snape isn't necessarily what is objective. Or Hagrid, or any other teacher. Harry was influenced before he even met Snape, and apparently took it into the class with him. He thought he was just taking notes, but he wouldn't have noticed that he seemed not to be listening, thereby bringing Snape's wrath down on him. Just a discussion point. Ceridwen. From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 13:48:32 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:48:32 -0000 Subject: Werewolf Bites In-Reply-To: <20050928041218.5661.qmail@web60321.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140849 Dave: > While rereading SS, Chapter 13 "Nicholas Flamel," I found the following in the last paragraph on p 220 of my US edition: > > "The next morning in Defense against the Dark Arts, while copying down different ways of treating werewolf bites, Harry and Ron were still discussing ...." > > If first year students are taught several treatment methods, why is everyone so afraid of Grayback and why is everyone so concerned and worried about Bill Weasley's injuries? > > Is the preceding a Flint? Comments anyone. Finwitch: Not really -- treating werewolf bites is quite different from curing the 'furry little problem.' The biggest problem was not the wound - it was the fact that Bill *might* be a werewolf. (All those nasty prejudices -- but not wholly without reason, considering that Fenrir Greyback). Also, although I think that ointment was helpful, there are other ways, such as phoenix tears (they DO have healing powers - enough to completely cure a *basilisk* bite, and I'd say that's more lethal). Too bad Fawkes was singing his lament at the time and unavailable. Oh - you know, I think phoenix tears *could* heal poisoning, too. You just need a bleeding wound so the tears go directly into your blood... bezoar is less messy, but maybe it doesn't work on basilisk venom. Phoenix tears DO, however. Finwitch From ibchawz at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 14:48:22 2005 From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:48:22 -0000 Subject: 7 parts of V's Souls/ 7Books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140851 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > crypticamoeba wrote: > > What if being the maniacal type of genius she is, JKR decided way > > back to infuse her books throughout with this idea of 7 being a > > magical number (canon: HBP). Given that there are 7 divided parts > > to voldemorts soul (canon: HBP). What if she decided to introduce > > us to one part per book. They may be small and unobtrusive but > > there. > > > > Book 1: > > Book 2: Voldemort's Diary (Destroyed) > > Book 3: > > Book 4: Naghini (sp?) > > Book 5: Locket in #12 (theory based on canon locket in OotP and RAB > > being Rudolfus A Black OotP and HBP) > > Book 6: Marvolo's Ring > > Book 7: > > Valky: > I agree. And, note also, that The Diary, Nagini and the Locket, are > all partially revealed for the first time *prior* to Harry's return to > Hogwarts > > The Diary - In Flourish and Blotts Book2 > Nagini - Little Hangleton Book4 > The Locket - Grimmauld Place Book5 > The Ring - On Dumbledore's Hand Book6 > > This would place a partial reveal of the Book1 Horcrux, in Diagon > Alley. IMO this one really could be already found by clever listees > here, in Ollivanders shop. I am pretty sold on that myself. > and the Book3 Horcrux too should be revealed in some part of the Leaky > Cauldron, Florean Fortescues, or the Magical Menagerie or even in the > Daily Prophet or on the Knight bus!! phew LOL good luck hunting > through that lot for it. I think that this one is supposed to be > very well hidden. > > ibchawz responds: Following Valky's logic, Book 1 could be foreshawdowing LV himself. Hagrid tells Harry about LV before he goes to Hogwarts. Quirrell! Mort is mentioned throughout the book. In addition, Hagrid retrieved the philosopher's / sorcerer's stone when they went to Gringott's. Harry spent his Christmas break looking in the restricted section for information on Nicholas Flamel, inventor of the stone that LV needed to restore him to his own body. ibchawz From Cairie.Witter at resbank.co.za Wed Sep 28 13:56:18 2005 From: Cairie.Witter at resbank.co.za (Cairie Witter) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:56:18 +0200 Subject: who is rab again Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140852 jajaredor, on the Subject of: Who is RAB again (WAS: Re: Snape and Regulus/OFH!Snape), suggests that: < I remember reading once that in deutsch, black is zwarts but this hasn't been proved yet because I don't have a copy of the book in deutsch version. so if RAB is really Regulus then the initials in the deutsch version would be RAZ. (This, in support of the RAB == Regulus Arcturus Black theory).> Deborah: Good thinking, just mildly flawed ... ! On a technicality, and to minimise hopeless quests, Deutsch == German, where black, or Black, is Schwartz. RAS, therefore ... As it would also be in Afrikaans. However, in Dutch the initials would certainly be RAZ. Three fruitful fields for research! Are these translations out yet? After all, wasn't it the Portuguese translator who had to know the sex of Prof Sinistra, and thus clarified for all of us that she's a she? Any language which didn't use the B initial for the Blacks would do, in fact - what fun! Polyglots of the Potterverse, unite! You have nothing to lose but your speculations! Cairie: In the Afrikaans black would be Swart not Schwartz. I haven't read an Afrikaans version for a long time, because, I need to get them from my audio libraries here in South Africa. What I can remember is that Hermione Granger is changed to Hermien La Gransie. Tom is changed to Eric. I'll give you all the changes when i can. Cairie From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Sep 28 15:22:15 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:22:15 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140853 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > 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. I think that Vivian and I are alike in reading Snape as essentially the same person throughout it all, and I agree with Vivian on that because I think JKR also builds her characters upon this philosophy. 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. 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. 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. Maybe you mean that Snape can't change that, in which case I agree with you. 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. But mostly it's under control -- even among the Gryffindors, whom he treats worst, it's only Neville who's really afraid of him, and that fear is not realistic, IMO. His boggart was not Snape gloating over dead Trevor. It was Snape about to draw his wand. Unless Neville has some unrecognized abilities as a seer, that was not based on anything but his imagination. And Snape is not responsible for what other people imagine he might do. There's no question in my mind that his instinct does run away with Snape sometimes. But that doesn't mean that he can't decide that he would rather be the tail among the lions than the head among the foxes (or the serpents). Serving Dumbledore wouldn't make Snape into an angel, and I don't think he is one. But I think he is Dumbledore's man. He chose to stay with Dumbledore after Voldemort was first defeated. Dumbledore wasn't his only option for staying out of Azkaban. He could have made a deal with Crouch instead. He could have gone to Durmstrang and studied the Dark Arts and still have returned to Dumbledore for protection if Voldemort stirred again, just as Karkaroff was invited to do. Pippin From anurim at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 15:13:19 2005 From: anurim at yahoo.com (Mira) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 08:13:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] UV = DDM? (was:Re: OFH! Snape again. WAS: Straightforward readings? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050928151319.80808.qmail@web32611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140854 Writing messages only when fully awake = a course in time management Editing messages before sending them = an alarm lock with more attitude Having Shortie Elf scan messages for bloopers = priceless Please find below the corrected version of message 140850 (now deleted). Thanks for the patience... Mira --- horridporrid03 wrote: > Enter the Unbreakable Vow. This is *not* something > that either > Snape or Dumbledore forsaw, IMO. And this is where > the DADA curse > may well manifest itself. > (See Carol's excellent post on the DADA jinx here: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137961 > ) This is an excellent point, Betsy (and Carol). The UV almost puts Snape under the impossibility to fulfill the DADA job for more than one year (he will either die or have to flee). However, it does not prevent Draco succeeding in killing Dumbledore, in which case, in principle, Snape could have stayed on as a DADA teacher. Let me start by clarifying that I am in the OFH!Snape camp, although I would be very happy if DDM!Snape proves true. I have, however, one big objection to the DDM!Snape: when Draco tells Dumbledore about the UV, Dumbledore contradicts him: 'He hasn't been doing YOUR orders, he promised my mother-' 'Of course that is what he would tell you, Draco, but-' (British edition p 549) Now, the way I see it, this could have three possible explanations: 1. Dumbledore does not know about the UV, in which case: 1a) Snape is ESE or OFH, or: 1b) Snape did not tell Dumbledore about the UV because he knew that Dumbledore would sacrifice himself and Snape wanted to be the one who dies, but this is completely at odds with how I read Snape's character, or perhaps: 1c) Snape did not tell Dumbledore about the UV because he knew that Dumbledore would ask him to do the murder, and he still hoped that Draco would do it, but this does not agree with the fact the Snape wanted to protect Draco through and through. 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). 3. Dumbledore knows about the UV but does not tell Draco because Draco would know that if the UV has indeed happened, either Dumbledore or Snape would have to die, then he would probably expect Snape to kill Dumbledore anyway and endeavor to do it himself in order to lap up all the glory. There might be less twisted explanations of the scene, but right now I cannot come up with anything else. Of all the possibilities listed above, I must concede that 1a is the least problematic, if not the only one who can sail. 1c might have some merits, too. One very important point for me is the timing of the events described in chapters two and three of the HBP. Let me discuss two possible timelines: A) Snape takes the UV, then runs to Dumbledore to tell him, and Dumbledore decides to let Snape kill him. Since it is his last year at Hogwarts anyway, Dumbledore gives Snape the DADA position, Snape remains DDM through and through. B) Dumbledore gives Snape the DADA position, which in turn makes the UV come into being. This is, I believe, the chronology that you also favor, Betsy. My question is: if B is true, why would Dumbledore decide to give Snape the DADA job, in the first place? I believe that the answer is: Dumbledore gave Snape the DADA position deliberately in order to prevent Draco from succeeding in his mission. Snape told Bellatrix in Chapter 2 that Voldemort would have liked Draco to kill Dumbledore and Snape to remain in his position as a spy against the Order. This is, I believe, exactly what Dumbledore wanted to prevent when he made Snape DADA professor. If this is true, Dumbledore cannot have such a 100% trust in Snape as he pretends. Dumbledore knew the DADA job would bring the worst in Snape, he must have had a very strong reason to take this risk. So Dumbledore certainly accepted to sacrifice himself - not only in order to spare Draco becoming a murderer, but also in order to prevent Snape for staying on at Hogwarts after Dumbledore dies. In this scenario, the fact that Harry was a witness to the crime was (also a) direct results of the DADA jinx, but none of these means that Snape is DDM or that Dumbledore himself really believed in Snape's loyality. All this leads, I believe, to a decent explanation for Dumbledore's pleading: he did not beg Snape to kill (if 1a then there was no need for Snape to kill Dumbledore) or spare him (since Dumbledore was not afraid of death, indeed, he seemed to have embraced the idea quite early on in Book 6): Dumbledore pleaded with Snape to remain on the side of the good, to continue helping Harry and the Order even if nobody would know about this and even if his faith would be payed with suspicion and hate. This definitely is something which I see Dumbledore pleading for. In any case, if Dumbledore did not know about the UV then I really don't see much possibility for Snape to be DDM (unless his concern for Draco has always been a facade, but this is not how it sounded to me). Sorry if all this sounds a bit convoluted, it is quite late here, but it is the only time when I can read/reply. Mira __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From maliksthong at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 16:36:01 2005 From: maliksthong at yahoo.com (Chys Lattes) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 16:36:01 -0000 Subject: Is Bella the keeper of a Horcrux? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140855 > > Potioncat: > I think you're right. I snipped the part about Draco "seeing" it, but > that's a strong possibility too. Now, another question might be: could > she have had the locket at one time? > > Hmm...maybe we should look at the timeline and see if Bella delayed in > delivering the horcrux? ;-) Chys: Or maybe she just babysits Nagini when Peter is spying on Snape? Chys From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 16:44:11 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:44:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050928164411.20492.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140856 > Valky: > > I believe, Magda, that you are mistaken in claiming this is > absolute > canon. Lupin does not say specifically "...as of then Snape started > Hexing James at every opportunity", he says Snape "never" lost and > opportunity to hex James. 'Never' meaning - not ever; at no time in > the past or future, cannot be construed to indicate a specific > period > of time without explicit identification of that period. To say, > that > Lupin is referring only to Snapes actions as of sixth year, is > speculation, albeit fairly well based. If you look at the context of Lupin's comment, it came during the part where they tell Harry that when James and Lily began going out in 6th year, James had de-swelled his head and stopped hexing people just for the fun of it. Harry asks, even Snape? And they say, well Snape was a special case, he never lost the opportunity to hex James. Harry asks, and Lily was okay with that? And they say, well she didn't know. So from that context, it's pretty clear that they are talking about what happened AFTER the Pensieve Incident. Now if you want to claim that - in the middle of the conversation about what happened in sixth year - Lupin and Sirius suddenly began describing things that happened in earlier years without letting Harry know that they were switching gears, then be my guest. But I disagree. Magda __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 16:32:06 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 16:32:06 -0000 Subject: Bullying/Snape and Neville and a bit of Harry too In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140857 Alla wrote: > > > > Oh, personall attention in a sense of turning Neville away from Potions forever? I think it was Amiable Dorsai who so eloquently said that because of Snape Neville has no hope of advancing in the > > subject which is closely related to his best subject. Pippin responded: > Now this is a stretch, IMO. There are loads of people who love gardening but hate to cook. I'm sure there are plenty of opportunities for herbologists that don't involve NEWT class potion-making. > > We can't even say that Neville's lack of NEWT classes in potion making kept him from becoming an Auror, because he wasn't able to progress in transfiguration either. Carol adds: The claim that most potion ingredients are plants or plant parts can't really be supported, either. Take, for example, the recipe for Polyjuice Potion (copied verbatim from the Lexicon): lacewing flies stewed 21 days, leeches, powdered bicorn horn, knotgrass, fluxweed picked at full moon, shredded boomslang skin, a bit of who one wants to turn into (CS10, CS11) Two ingredients are plants (one of them picked at a specific time, as the potion maker would need to know); the remaining four are either animals or animal parts (counting humans as animals). I also recall, offhand, potions requiring caterpillars and stewed slugs. I'm sure there are many more examples. Other potions have minerals as ingredients, for example, moonstone combined with hellebore (a plant) in the Draught of Peace. So Potions is clearly much more than an extension of Herbology, and a green thumb is no help if you don't have a scientific mind. Snape has both an appreciation of precision and, as we find out in HBP, a knack for experimentation. Neville, it would appear, has neither, and is also nervous, forgetful, and clumsy, which is why Snape finds him so annoying. (As I noted before, Snape pays him no attention until he melts Seamus's cauldron--not the way I'd want to call attention to myself in Snape's class.) Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 16:46:53 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 16:46:53 -0000 Subject: Who is RAB again (WAS: Re: Snape and Regulus/OFH!Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140858 Deborah wrote: > Good thinking, just mildly flawed ... ! On a technicality, and to minimise hopeless quests, Deutsch = German, where black, or Black, is Schwartz. RAS, therefore ... As it would also be in Afrikaans. However, in Dutch the initials would certainly be RAZ. Three fruitful fields for research! Are these translations out yet? > Any language which didn't use the B initial for the Blacks would do, in fact - what fun! Polyglots of the Potterverse, unite! You have nothing to lose but your speculations! > > Deborah, frustrated not to have access to any translations right now Carol notes: Of course, this valuable information would lose its value if the translator retained or transliterated RAB without inquiring what the initials stood for. And I'm not sure that JKR would be willing to give out that information, even if the translator enquired about it. (On a side note, I wonder how the whole concept would be handled in a language like Chinese or Japanese that doesn't use initials. Maybe someone could answer that question in OT Chatter.) Carol, hoping to be proven wrong on this one From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Wed Sep 28 17:50:34 2005 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:50:34 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <433AD7EA.3040707@btopenworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140859 M.Clifford wrote: > Going off on my own sort of tangent here, I don't think that people > change. Unless their name is James, of course. Right? :-) Irene From ibchawz at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 18:17:18 2005 From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:17:18 -0000 Subject: I think I have Snape figured out In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140860 > zeavin91001: > Note: Flamel may be gone and the stone may be > gone...but the KNOWLEDGE still existed as DD was one of the creators > of the stone. I believe that Snape was pretty much keeping DD alive > with the elixir, which may have run out. DD knew he was going to die. > It was necessary to the plan to destroy Voldemort. > > That is my theory and I'm sticking to it. > > "zeavin91001" ibchawz responds: This part of your post does not make sense to me. How could DD have assisted Nicholas Flamel with the creation of the stone? Flamel was a ripe old 650+ years old. DD was a "spring chicken" at a mere 150. It does not seem believable for me that Flamel could have lived 500+ years before DD was even born without the stone. The canon we have indicates that DD was a friend to Flamel (who invented the stone), but it states nothing about DD assisting with this development. ibchawz From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Sep 28 18:33:19 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:33:19 -0000 Subject: OFH! Snape again. WAS: Straightforward readings? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140861 houyhnhnm: > It's hard to believe that Voldemort really bought Snape's story > when he returned. More likely that Snape created just enough > doubt to keep himself alive while LV waited for proof of Snape's > treachery or for the opportunity to use and punish Snape at the > same time. Jen: Also very hard to believe: Voldemort was relying solely on Draco to carry out this most important deed. LOL! No. There was more to this plan than punishing Lucius. Every book, minus POA, we see a convoluted Voldemort plan with a clearly defined goal: The Stone, opening the chamber, transporting Harry to the graveyard, luring Harry to the prophecy, and this time around, killing Dumbledore (which btw, I thought was a much better strategy than his past ones; seems like he should have started with this one ). Narcissa is definitely the operator in this one, out of desperation, but Voldemort's agent nonetheless. The other notable plot development we always see is Voldemort's ultimate failure: Yes, he opened the chamber but failed to return to human form; yes he transported Harry to the graveyard, but failed to kill him; yes, he lured Harry to the DOM, but failed to get the prophecy; yes, he managed to get Dumbledore killed, but.....? Book 7 as the second-half of Book 6 will answer this, I think, and I'm talking about an answer *before* the big ending. Some flaw Voldemort underestimated by having Dumbledore killed (and maybe specifically killed by Snape?). (All I know is I'm still waiting for my Dumbledore explanation, and since we didn't get one in the flesh, I'm waiting for him to do so via letter, Pensieve, etc.) > houyhnhnm: > For me, the idea that Voldemort was behind the UV fits into the > DD'sMan!Snape theory. We see how carefully Snape arranges his > emotions to safeguard himself from Voldemort's Legilimency. He > won't even break bread with the other members of the Order. > We see the extent to which Dumbledore shares his concern. > Dumbledore leaves Harry feeling alone and rejected for a whole > year because he is afraid that Voldemort might find out and make > use of his affection for Harry. Jen: Good thoughts. Would also add the use of the Pensieve for Occlumency to hide his memories from Voldemort, rather than Harry, in case Harry did exactly what he did. Surely this was Dumbledore's idea though, Snape wouldn't believe Mediocre!Harry would be capable of such a thing. Anyway, I'm with the people who have proposed Snape's Worst Memory was still hidden in the Pensieve, most likely the events of the GH incident--that's the one he needs to hide from LV if he truly changed sides. houyhnhnm: > What if the same dynamic was at work in the relationship between > Snape and Dumbledore? Snape careful never to step out of his role > as dutiful employee, never even to call Dumbledore by name. > Dumbledore careful never to show Snape any mark of personal regard. Jen: I never considered this, but it must be true. A certain distance between them, even during those long years Voldemort was vapor, because Snape can have no memories of a personal relationship. houyhnhnm: > Then Dumbledore receives a nearly fatal curse while retrieving and > destroying the ring horcrux. We never learn the details. There are > so many other parallels between Harry and Snape in HBP. It has me > wondering if there wasn't a parallel "I am not worried ... I am > with you." Jen: Those parallels were there, both Snape and Harry were Dumbledore's men, I believe. It's no accident both were with Dumbledore that fated night, his two most important & trusted lieutenants. Whether one followed the path of betrayl and one remained loyal remains to be seen, but a Snape betrayl where the *bad* son would live up to the predictions and follow that course, and the shining son remain unsullied and loyal? Bleh. Stereotyping. houyhnhnm: > What if the defenses of both men were breached at the time that > Snape saved Dumbledore from the curse? What if, never having had > feelings of affection to repress, Snape wasn't able to shield the > change in his relationship with Dumbledore from Voldemort? > Voldemort realized his moment was come and the trap was set. The > perfect punishment. Make Snape kill the only person who cared > about him, the only person the adult Snape had ever managed to > love, and get rid of The Only One He Ever Feared at the same time. Jen: "In other words, I acted exactly as Voldemort expects we fools who love to act." Bingo. (ootp, chap. 37, p. 838) And especially a punishment to kill a loving father-figure, since we know Voldemort has a few *issues* with fathers. I'm almost certain JKR was referring to Dumbeldore when she said Snape had been loved. Well, maybe his mommy too, but Dumbledore would be the important one for the story. Houyhnhnm: > As for the tower, I think both Snape and Dumbledore tried to > prevent such a scene from taking place all year, but once they > were all arrived there nobody had a choice. Jen: Possibly Snape didn't tell DD the third vow? We've seen loyal Order members attempt to solve their own problems without Dumbledore's knowledge and/or agreement: The Secret Keeper plan for the Potters; Lupin not revealing the animagi in POA; Sirius going to the DOM, for starters. But if Dumbledore knew everything, then I agree they planned together to put off the moment as long as possible, neither knowing Draco was succeeding with the cabinent. houyhnhnm: > The real test for Snape would have come when Dumbledore arrived > back at the castle, poisoned, with no successful Draco plot, no > DE's in the castle. Would Snape have tried to save Dumbledore's > life or not? We'll never know and neither will Snape. Hence > the "DON'T CALL ME COWARD!" Jen: That comment & the entire moment still bother me from a narrative perspective (I think that's the right term). Other people have mentioned how the howling dog in the background was meant to bring up Padfoot, and I guess Snape's betrayl of Sirius? But I read that moment as *Snape* being compared to the howling dog in pain and found it poignant. Anyone have a thought on this? Jen From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 18:38:28 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:38:28 -0000 Subject: Bullying/Snape and Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140862 > > Alla: > > > > Oh, personall attention in a sense of turning Neville away from > > Potions forever? I think it was Amiable Dorsai who so eloquently > > said that because of Snape Neville has no hope of advancing in the > > subject which is closely related to his best subject. > > Pippin: > Now this is a stretch, IMO. There are loads of people who love > gardening but hate to cook. I'm sure there are plenty of > opportunities for herbologists that don't involve NEWT class > potion-making. Alla: Of course this is a speculation, but I remain convinced that this is not an outlandish one, so to speak. Now, there are plenty of gardeners who hate cooking of course and there are plenty of those who love . But I think that the better analogy, not exact one of course either, but better would be analogising Biology to Herbology and Chemistry to Potions. Now, I myself never really loved those subjects when I was at school ( I much preferred history, languages, literature), but the people who did quite often loved both AND did well in both. Again, I think that it is a possibility that since Neville loves plants, he would be interested in figuring out what kind of potions could be made of them. But of course he needs a teacher like Sprout for that, IMO. Pippin: > We can't even say that Neville's lack of NEWT classes in potion making > kept him from becoming an Auror, because he wasn't able to progress > in transfiguration either. > Alla: No, we cannot, but I think we can speculate that for example if Neville wanted to become a Healer, he cannot do so, because Healer is likely to be required to have a NEWT in Potions, IMO. > Carol adds: > The claim that most potion ingredients are plants or plant parts can't > really be supported, either. So Potions > is clearly much more than an extension of Herbology, and a green thumb > is no help if you don't have a scientific mind. Snape has both an > appreciation of precision and, as we find out in HBP, a knack for > experimentation. Neville, it would appear, has neither, and is also > nervous, forgetful, and clumsy, which is why Snape finds him so > annoying. Alla: That is only one Potion, Carol and I did not say that they don't have other ingredients. But I absolutely disagree that you don't need to have a scientific mind in Biology. As I said , I did not like it much in school, but I sure thought that people who excelled in it had as you put it " apreciation for precision" and "knack for experimentation". In Herbology they often deal with dangerous, poisonous plants and Neville does a superb job of taking care of it. I am sure to cultivate some plants, you have to be very precise in taking care of them. Again, I speculate here based mostly on RW analogies of those subjects as I see them, but I think it is a reasonable assumption to make. JMO of course, Alla. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 19:05:59 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:05:59 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140863 -- > vmonte: > But he is a bully and a sadist according to canon, therefore he is > the perfect recruit. He was probably never recruited anyway, he > probably enlisted himself. a_svirn: Personally, I don't understand this argument. For one thing Snape is certainly not a sadist, for another he would have to be really obtuse to join Voldemort just so he would be able to indulge in bullying. He might be an "ESE" horrid man but no one ever called him a fool. Certainly a career in the ministry is safer and presents far more opportunities for this kind of thing. Just look at Umbridge. Moreover, in his capacity of a Housemaster and a Professor he wields far more power and enjoys more opportunities for harrying the weak (pardon the pun), than he ever be able to do in his guise of a Death Eater. And how did he "enlist himself", send an advertisement to the Daily Prophet? > vmonte: > > By the way, Tom Riddle is also a loner, outsider, sadist, and bully. > He is indeed. a_svirn From moosiemlo at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 17:28:57 2005 From: moosiemlo at yahoo.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:28:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Damage to Dudley? WAS:Re: Digest Number 6489 In-Reply-To: <1126775095.2277.54246.m29@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20050928172857.20350.qmail@web30005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140864 Jeffhodap wrote: I was re-reading the Half-Blood Prince and I wonder what effect Dumbledore's death will have on the Dursleys? Petunia blanched at the thought of Harry coming of age. This seemed to be a hint. Was there more damage to Dudley than being doted on? I think he is in for a surprise. Lynda says: Oh, I'm quite certain the Dursleys are in for quite a number of surprises in the next book, many of which will probably bounce off their skulls. On the subject of Dudley having more damage than just being doted on though, of course his treatment by his parents has damaged him. He was given everything he wanted and allowed to tantrum without consequence. He was bribed with food and toys. He also has to endure his father's temper as well as deal with his mother's need for perfection. It doesn't lead to a healthy self-image to live in circumstances of that nature. Lynda Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 19:15:59 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:15:59 -0000 Subject: OFH! Snape again. WAS: Straightforward readings? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140865 > houyhnhnm: > > The real test for Snape would have come when Dumbledore arrived > > back at the castle, poisoned, with no successful Draco plot, no > > DE's in the castle. Would Snape have tried to save Dumbledore's > > life or not? We'll never know and neither will Snape. Hence > > the "DON'T CALL ME COWARD!" > > Jen: That comment & the entire moment still bother me from a > narrative perspective (I think that's the right term). Other people > have mentioned how the howling dog in the background was meant to > bring up Padfoot, and I guess Snape's betrayl of Sirius? But I read > that moment as *Snape* being compared to the howling dog in pain and > found it poignant. Anyone have a thought on this? > zgirnius: People may of course make what they will of the symbolism of there being an actual howling dog in the background. But the text presents it your way, so I'd say we would have to agree Snape is being compared to the dog, whatever other meanings it might have. I quote: "DON'T-" screamed Snape, and his face was suddenly demented, inhuman, as though he was in as much pain as the yelping, howling dog stuck in the burning house behind them - "CALL ME COWARD". Now, finding it poignant or otherwise is of course left up to the reader. I can see some readers having more of a "yeah, take that, Snape!" reaction, based on some of the posts I have read in the group ;-). I'm on the fence about whether Snape has remained loyal to DD throughout, or whether the UV put too much pressure on him and he killed DD to save himself. But I personally find it impossible to think Snape wanted to kill DD, or planned it from the start. He may have done it, but he was *not* happy about it. And this moment you bring up is one of the major reasons I feel this way. It's not the accusation of cowardice per se that gets to him. I'm not the first to point out that Harry has already made that accusation earlier in their exchange, and just got an insult about his father thrown back at him. The difference, to me, is that the second instance occurs when Harry is defenseless, and says "Kill me like you killed him, you coward-" which to me, and I believe to Snape, evokes the killing of Dumbledore (who was also defenseless). I personally have been guessing Snape did act to save his own life, in which case he agrees with Harry about the cowardice of his own actions. Hence the strong reaction, such an insult obviously stings more when it coincides with one's own opinions. Although I really find the suggestion of houyhnhnm above pretty neat as well. That after making the Vow Snape has wondered himself whether he would have the guts to make the "right choice" of dying, but finds in the end that circumstances have made the issue rather murkier than he expected it would be. So he'll never know if he would under other circumstances have acted differently. Actually, I even more like the idea that Snape is not entirely sure *why* he did it. As houyhnhnm lays out, Snape possibly knew some good reasons that made his killing of DD necessary. But he might harbor nagging doubts as to whether those reasons were *really* why he acted... From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Sep 28 20:08:36 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 20:08:36 -0000 Subject: Career Advice (was Re: Bullying/Snape and Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140866 > Alla: > Again, I think that it is a possibility that since Neville loves > plants, he would be interested in figuring out what kind of potions > could be made of them. Potioncat: Well, I'm sure there's more to herbology than potion ingredients. So a Herbologist may need to provide a Potion maker with a plant that was picked at the right time or dried in the right way, etc. Or they may need to provide a selection of plants to an apothecary for a herbal mixture. Cultivating the plants for their eventual use is a study in itself. I doubt if a potionmaker would want to spend all the time necessary to raise all the herbal ingredients. So the herbologist may need to understand the eventual use of the plants without being able to make the potion. Just as the potionmaker may need to understand something of how the plant was grown, but doesn't need to be the one to grow it. > >> > > Pippin: > > We can't even say that Neville's lack of NEWT classes in potion > making kept him from becoming an Auror, because he wasn't able to progress in transfiguration either. > > > > Alla:> > No, we cannot, but I think we can speculate that for example if > Neville wanted to become a Healer, he cannot do so, because Healer is likely to be required to have a NEWT in Potions, IMO. Potioncat: Healer needed Transfigurations, Potions, DADA and something else. I remember that Auror and Healer needed the same courses. Which is why I think Ron is taking courses for Auror but will become a Healer. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 20:40:48 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 20:40:48 -0000 Subject: Who is RAB again. WAS:Re: Snape and Regulus/OFH!Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140867 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > > > Geoff: > > This fascinates me because one of my interests has always been > > linguistics - especially the links between languages. > -- > > The trouble with translations is that the word plays of the > > original are lost so the subtleties of such as Diagon Alley, > > Knockturn Alley, Durmstrang and Pensieve cannot be appreciated in > > the foreign editions. > > Finwitch: > > I am fascinated on the linguistics as well. The 'lost in > translation' - is one of the reasons why I prefer to read the books > in English. Another is plainly and simply that doing so helps me > learn-or keep up the language. > > ...edited... > > I don't know how the R.A.B. will come up once the translation is > done... if it was Regulus , it ought to say R.A.M. in Finnish, no > doubt. I think Rowling is quite busy answering what the 'B.' stands > for to translators who need to know... > > Finwitch 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. But JKR herself pointed out incomprehensible name changes. For example, in Italian (I think) Professor Dumbledore has been changed to Professor Silencio. The translators couldn't make head or tails out of the deconstruction of 'Dumbledore'. The best they could do was make an association between 'dumb' and 'silent' and came up with 'Silencio'. In that case, the name should have simply been left alone. His name is Dumbledore, which, while it may have meaning in it self, has no meaning in the story, and therefore shouldn't be changed. Other names are in-between, names like Remus Lupin. Both Remus, regarding the legend of Romulus and Remus, and Lupin are, directly or indirectly, wolf related references. If the translator couldn't come up with new names that had the same 'wolf' implications then they should have just left it alone. Just out of curiousity, in the legend of Romulus and Remus, two infants raised by wolves, are their names changed in the various foreign language version of that fable? I guess my basic point is that unless there is a compelling reason to do so, names should not be translated. Just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn From anurim at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 20:03:03 2005 From: anurim at yahoo.com (Mira) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:03:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Who is RAB again. WAS:Re: Snape and Regulus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050928200303.38550.qmail@web32606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140868 Geoff Bannister wrote: > (2) With suggestions such as "Remember Amelia Bones" > being made, why > would someone leaving a note for Voldemort use a set > of initials which > were not those of their name? > > Also, why would Voldemort recognise references to > Amelia Bones - has > she had dealing with him in the past? Surely whoever > left the note had > initials which would be immediately recognised by > him - and the note > reveals it was someone who also knew a bout the > Horcrux setup. Of how many individuals do we know whom Voldemort has deemed important enough to go after them himself? In truth, we only know that he murdered his uncle, his father, and a few others whose deaths he used in order to make Horcruxes. As per Snape, we know that Voldemort is 'irked' enough by Harry now to want the kid for himself. But of all the others, Regulus, Emmeline, Karkaroff, Cedric, etc etc etc, we are specifically told that it was not the Dark Lord who killed them, but some obscure Death Eaters. We also know that Voldemort is not above sending his acolytes to murder people of which he is afraid (such as Dumbledore). Yet, Fudge says in the first chapter of HBP: "Amelia Bones. Head of the Departament of Magical Law Enforcement. We think He Who Must Not Be Named may have murdered her in person, because she was a very gifted witch - and all the evidence was that she put up a real fight." (British Edition, page 19). Dumbledore also stresses to Harry that "She was a great witch" and her death is "a great loss". (British Edition , page 63). I have three questions regarding these statements. OK, four. 1. Didn't such a great witch sort of waste her talent as a member of the Law Enforcement Squad? When did she have such a pivotal role in the battle to make her death 'a great loss'?. As far as we know, Amelia is not even a member of the Order. Of course, it was crucial to have a fair person like her in the Ministry, but from "fair" to "great" there is quite a distance. So, when and how has Amelia proved her greatness in direct relevance to the battle? 2. Which exactly are the "reasons" for Fudge to believe that Voldemort killed Amelia himself? Just because she put up a good fight? Surely she would have put up an even better fight against a less powerful wizard. She was a great witch, but who says that there are great wizardfolks and then there is Voldemort? Snape is a great wizard too. Greater or less great than Amelia, who knows? Who can say for sure that only Voldemort could have vanquished Amelia and nobody else? To me these "reasons" do not really hold water unless there are other links between Voldemort and Amelia of which we are not aware as yet. 3. If Voldemort wanted Amelia dead badly enough for the Ministry folks to believe that he bothered to kill her himself, why didn't he try to do it by stealth? And why on earth was it that important to kill Amelia, how could she have impeded Voldemort's plans for greatness? Of course, she would be on the hitlist because she is great and incorruptible, but surely not above Lupin, or Hagrid, or other DDM, or Dumbledore, for that matter. Voldemort doesn't strike me as the type who cares for Law Enforcement, since he is a Law into himself, by definition. 4. Why on earth do we need to know all this, why introduce Amelia then kill her off instead of letting her do her job in peace, because anyway it would not influence Harry's story in any way, why identify Susan by name, it just doesn't make any sense. Jo specifically said that she made OotP so huge because she wanted to give us enough clues on what will happen later. I know the clues were not about ships *grin*, because those fell completely out of the sky, so surely some of the things which seem loose ends at the moment will be picked up and prove important in Book 7. OK, these were not the original questions, I forgot many ideas and made up others while typing. I won't press the point any further because in fact I don't necessarily believe that Amelia stole the locket, I don't really believe anything about this matter right now, but I wanted to bring up the possiblity that RAB are not the initials of a name, but a more complicated acronym. After all, do you think that Voldemort would recognise more quickly a symbol that might have had some importance for him in the past, or the initials (middle name comprised!) of a meek DE or another (when there were so many of them in the first war that they outnumbered the members of the Order ten to one)? Mira From jane_starr at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 21:05:44 2005 From: jane_starr at yahoo.com (Jane Starr) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:05:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Damage to Dudley? WAS:Re: Digest Number 6489 In-Reply-To: <20050928172857.20350.qmail@web30005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050928210544.93814.qmail@web30212.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140869 --- Lynda Cordova wrote: > Lynda says: > > Oh, I'm quite certain the Dursleys are in for quite > a number of surprises in the next book, many of > which will probably bounce off their skulls. On the > subject of Dudley having more damage than just being > doted on though, of course his treatment by his > parents has damaged him. He was given everything he > wanted and allowed to tantrum without consequence. > He was bribed with food and toys. He also has to > endure his father's temper as well as deal with his > mother's need for perfection. It doesn't lead to a > healthy self-image to live in circumstances of that > nature. JES: Not to mention the in-house example of how his parents treated Harry during his tenure in their home - you'd get a pretty skewed view of how it was ok to treat other people with that example in front of you every day. JES __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From jajaredor at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 20:47:11 2005 From: jajaredor at yahoo.com (Jaja Redor) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:47:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Not a Dark Mark ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050928204711.54681.qmail@web61220.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140870 Ceridwen: I don't think, after re- reading certain parts and mulling over Harry's obsession with Draco - Harry would have noticed a pattern of full-moon disappearances, wouldn't he? - that Draco is a werewolf Jaja: The story was told in Harry's POV so we can't keep tabs of what Draco's been doing whether or not he disappears every full-moon days. All we know was just he keept on disappearing every now and then. Sure Harry ordered Kreacher and Dobby to tail Draco but what if Draco goes out every now and then without patterns including that day of the month? Well, he has a lot to do including fulfilling Voldemort's order. Jaja Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. From jrkathryn at netscape.net Wed Sep 28 21:26:39 2005 From: jrkathryn at netscape.net (jrkathryn) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:26:39 -0000 Subject: Damage to Dudley? In-Reply-To: <20050928172857.20350.qmail@web30005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140871 > Jeffhodap wrote: > > I was re-reading the Half-Blood Prince and I wonder what effect > Dumbledore's death will have on the Dursleys? Petunia blanched at the > thought of Harry coming of age. This seemed to be a hint. Was there > more damage to Dudley than being doted on? I think he is in for a > surprise. Kathryn wrote: JKR in huge interview, with the mugglenet I believe, said please forgive the paraphrasing "Someone who doesn't have magic will show signs of having some kind of magical ability" Now this can only be a handful of people The Dursleys being three Petunia Mr. Dursley Duddiekins Argus Filtch (sp) Arabella Figg 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. Kathryn From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 21:43:46 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:43:46 -0000 Subject: OFH! Snape again. WAS: Straightforward readings? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140872 Saraquel: I enjoyed the exchange between Houyhmhmn and Jen, and this is the - yes good point, part of my reply! Now to take up a couple of side issues - Jen wrote: >(All I know is I'm still waiting for my Dumbledore explanation, and >since we didn't get one in the flesh, I'm waiting for him to do so >via letter, Pensieve, etc.) Saraquel: The question is, will we get the explanation from DD or Snape? Would DD leave anything "in writing" so to speak, lying around. He was always incredibly careful about who was allowed to know what, and was a master at concealing and revealing (or - from another POV - was also caught in his own Spinners End!) Is there anything that Harry needs to know that Snape does not know? I suspect that Snape has all the information about the ring horcrux, wouldn't he need to know that in order to break the curse and stop DD from dying. I have a feeling that DD has provided Harry with all the information that he alone knows, and that any other information that he needs can either be worked out by someone - e.g. Hermione will probably solve the logic puzzle that is the prophecy - or is in the possession of Snape. That Harry and Snape will meet again has been indicated by JKR in the MN/LC interview (I think it was that interview). If Snape has information that Harry needs, then Harry can't go in there wand blazing - he's got to negotiate with Snape - like it or not. So the question is, who contacts/finds who? If Snape is on the side of the Order (I'm still not quite comfortable calling him DDM) then he has every reason to contact Harry. Harry's only reasons for contacting Snape (that I can think of off hand at the time of writing) are to find out what happened with the Ring horcrux, vengeance for DDs death and (for our satisfaction)an explanation of why DD trusted him. Which is an interesting combination. Luckily for us, extracting information can't be done after death, so Harry has got to talk to Snape first and hopefully you'll get your information Jen, but will Harry be able to trust it? Maybe witholding information about the Ring was deliberate on DDs part, so that Harry and Snape would be forced to talk to each other again in the event of his own death. I think that it is quite possible that DD went to his death still trusting Snape - though I really don't know how to read the Tower scene, so I'm on the fence over that. I did have a thought about how Snape could get a message to Harry other than Fawkes, which Harry would trust. I was wondering if Dobby might come into play here. If Snape's relationship with the Malfoys does go back a long time then Dobby would have known Snape from both sides - just a thought. If it is Fawkes that delivers a message to Harry, then we definitely have a "and you must kill me Severus" DD, as in doing so Snape would be showing pretty incredible loyalty on the Tower, but there is a part of me that just feels very uneasy about that scenario. Jen wrote: >Anyway, I'm with the people who have proposed > Snape's Worst Memory was still hidden in the Pensieve, most likely > the events of the GH incident--that's the one he needs to hide >from LV if he truly changed sides. Saraquel: My problem with the - put something in a pensieve and take it right out of your head - theory, is that DD had Slughorn's tampered memory when he sent Harry off to retrieve the missing bits. The memory that Harry came back with was not just the missing bits, but the whole scene from beginning to end, implying that there are two copies of the memory, and the memory therefore stayed in Slughorn's head after he had given the duff one to DD. DD uses the pensieve to look for patterns, which could quite easily be done by putting a replica in the pensieve. However, it makes no sense for Snape to put stuff in the pensieve in the occlumency scene in OotP, unless he was removing these memories from his head. Is this then, an inconsistency from JKR? Saraquel From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 21:42:14 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:42:14 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140873 > Finwitch: > > No, I don't think so. Harry said: "for no good reason," did he not? And > let's not forget the Pettigrew-business in the Shack. And that Crouch > authorised Aurors to use Unforgivables, put Sirius to jail without a > trial... In addition, Harry's under such an ordeal having his word > doubted, they may need to break off the discussion very fast... No, > going to the playground 'who started it' just isn't a good option. It's > who stopped it that matters. zgirnius: Yes, I suppose admitting that James engaged in bullying behavior in younger years and stopped in year 6 or 7 might be reassuring to Harry. (Snape and James apparently carried on the vendetta. But that could be a one-on-one thing which would not bother Harry, I imagine.) Except that this is not mentioned in answer to Harry's question about an attack "for no reason". Sirius just says he's not proud of their behavior, and he and Remus enter into an explanation of how "cool", popular, and brilliant James and Sirius were. That James reformed is brought up later, when Harry wonders why Lily ever started to like James. Finwitch: > And as Harry's supposed to take Occlumency from Snape, it's NOT a good > idea to tell him all the bad things Snape did in school, seeing as > Harry's not in a good relationship with Snape as it is... So no - they > just tell him that 'James grew out of it.' Quite apparently, Snape has > not. zgirnius: Well, they mention that Snape and James were always enemies, always hexing each other. And, as you point out, Harry already has reasons of his own to have serious problems with Snape. I don't think a well- placed story about Snape and his "Slytherin Gang" picking on some poor little Gryffindor underclassman the previous week would cause Harry to reevaluate his relationship with Snape. (Assuming there *were* in fact such an incident to tell.) Lupin is clearly concerned about the Occlumency lessons continuing, since it belatedly occurs to him that of course this whole incident may have caused a problem. So is Sirius. However, Sirius hasn't shied away from saying bad things about Snape in Harry's presence in the past. Of course, those things were said in Snape's presence too, Sirius may not really have been able to help himself despite these concerns... Finwitch: > Just look at what Snape does in the Shrieking Shack! At least > Lupin acted maturedly most of time - and I've always been of the > opinion that Snape as adult has been constantly acting like a > teenager. > (and he doesn't have hormonal disbalance like the REAL teens do, so...) zgirnius: A defense of the adult Snape's actions vis a vis Harry is beyond the scope of my argument. I am not sure I would care to attempt it, as I don't find some opf his actions particularly defensible. I just happen to think that Snape was an oddball, and a loner, and an aficionado of the Dark Arts, when he came to Hogwarts. He immediately involved himself in an enmity with James Potter, which turned out to be a very unwise and unhappy choice on his part, as James led a very popular gang of Gryffindors who enjoyed picking on him. These circumstances contributed to Snape's becoming the thoroughly horrible person we now love to hate (or just hate, as the case may be...) I personally don't find Snape's actions in the Shack all that incomprehensible or obkectionable. Sirius was a convicted mass- murderer. And to Snape, as we know now, he was so much more. And I mean adult crimes, not their schoolboy differences. If Dumbledore's story about Snape's remorse is to be believed, at some point Snape deeply regretted telling Voldemort the Prophecy and endangering the Potters, and did all he could to atone for this. As far as he knew in that scene, *Sirius* was the man who made all of his efforts go for naught. If a part of his reasons was an attachment to Lily (as some have theorized) he would have an even *more* personal reason for hating Sirius. And this all *on top* of his hatred born of "the Prank" and other schoolboy incidents involving them both. To expect him to be immediately open to a reevaluation of Sirius' character on the say-so of Sirius and Lupin is not reasonable. Snape would quite reasonably have felt any and all remarks by them were just attempts to play for time. In fact, I am reminded on the recent thread (was Harry an idiot to believe Snape murdered DD in cold blood?). All Harry's experiences to date confirm his view that Snape is a bad guy. Then Snape kills DD...what is Harry *supposed* to think? By analogy, all Snape's school experiences led him to believe Sirius is a bad guy. Then, Sirius betrays the Potters to Voldemort and kills Peter Pettigrew and 13 Mugles. What is Snape *supposed* to think? While I personally would find his feeding Sirius to the Dementors over the top, this would alas have been an entirely legal action in the eyes of the MoM (demostrating the corruptness of that institution, but anyway...) Now, arranging to feed *Lupin* to the Dementors, as he threatened, would definitely have been over the line, but I am not convinced that such was his intention. I tend to think he was just gloating over his final vindication (he thought, sucker!) in his opinions of both men. (We'll never know, thanks to the quick actions of the Trio!) From jrkathryn at netscape.net Wed Sep 28 21:14:30 2005 From: jrkathryn at netscape.net (jrkathryn) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:14:30 -0000 Subject: 7 parts of V's Souls/ 7Books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140874 > > crypticamoeba wrote: > > > Book 1: > > > Book 2: Voldemort's Diary (Destroyed) > > > Book 3: > > > Book 4: Naghini (sp?) > > > Book 5: Locket in #12 (theory based on canon locket in OotP and RAB > > > being Rudolfus A Black OotP and HBP) > > > Book 6: Marvolo's Ring > > > Book 7: Kathryn: I read some where that someone thought that the Mirror of Erised might be the Hx in book one or it might be refered to in #3 POA by the twins being the mirror that a collapsed tunnel is behind (when the twins give Harry the Map scene). JKR herself in a great interview said "that careful readers will find another Hx within a week." Kathryn From jrkathryn at netscape.net Wed Sep 28 21:45:10 2005 From: jrkathryn at netscape.net (jrkathryn) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:45:10 -0000 Subject: Regulus A? Black, info about the name & misc. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140875 Kathryn wrote: The Regulus star is called the little king it is the 25th brightest star in the night sky. The zodiac symbol it is in, Leo the lion where it is the heart of the lion. I believe that Regulus Black has been mentioned far too many times to not be important. I believe the last count was four times? Several times in the HBP. One of those times it was mentioned by Prof. Slughorn that he would of liked to collected the pair of Blacks but Sirius would not play along. Slughorn only collected the best, the cream of the crop I think that Regulus would be more powerful than his brother would lead us to believe. I am always impressed by the vast amount of knowledge JKR has put into her books it shows an incredible knowledge and a love for the stories she creates. I also read somehere, a fairytale anthology, about the name Pigwigdon(sp) he was a knight from a fairytale story. Kathryn. From samwise_the_grey at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 22:00:37 2005 From: samwise_the_grey at yahoo.com (samwise_the_grey) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 22:00:37 -0000 Subject: Forbidden Education Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140876 Something has occured to me and I don't think it's been brought up before. If it has I apologize. Concerning the right to a wizarding education in Britian we see a few marginalized groups--werewolves, goblins, and most likely giants, centaurs, and elves--are forbidden to pursue studies of this nature. And it's stated in one of the books, I believe, that goblins cannot even own a wand much less use it. So what do marginalized people do when the Public Majority tells them they can not learn? They go and DO IT ANYWAY! Do all werewolves want to live in destitution? Nope. Do at least some Squibs want to try anyway? Yep. Do all goblins want a career in banking? Probably not. Do all house eleves want to cook and clean for a bunch of ingrates? Okay, yeah, but they must learn how to do their own kind of magic from older eleves. You can't levitate cakes by just instinctively knowing. What if there are underground schools in the WW? What's to keep the goblins from learning magic, as they are clearly magical beings, from using all their financial resources to fund an educational system in secret? Considering the mysterious, almost goblin exclusive nature of Gringotts--with it's extensive system of underground vaults--it shouldn't be hard to find a suitable place to do it. The only problem is that they have to have already educated goblins and/or sympathetic wizards to teach them. Everything else can be bought, whether it's school supplies or someone looking the other way. This also brings Lupin in mind and the fact that he has 'Prof R. J. Lupin' written on his bag in peeling letters. Now it could be said that this title is a recent addition but I don't think so. It seems too used to be anything else. He states in POA that he hasn't found PAID WORK, not that has never had a job. It's entirely possible that Lupin has been teaching elsewhere on a volenteer basis. Honestly, can we really believe Lupin has been sitting on his thumbs for those unaccounted 12 years? That he doesn't care about other werewolves at all? He's shown he's willing to do a thankless job because it needs to be done and if someone should ask him him to teach them I don't see Lupin saying no. As has been brought up before in other posts he may very well be teaching werewolves now as a way to get close to Fenrir Greyback and his followers. It's pure speculation but within the realm of possiblity. Lupin has a sort of notority for being a teacher at Hogwarts and at least some people (*cough*Umbridge*cough*) haven't forgotten it years after the fact. Even if this could backfire on the Order it doesn't mean the DE!Werewolves can't find other ways to hurt people. Wands aren't the only weapons in HP and should they find a non-destructive way to survive and rebel against their persecutors all the better. 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. For a more recent example the ALA educated women and girls in Afganistan under the deadly threat of the Taliban. They do this because it empowers them. The desire to learn can be just as powerful as the desire to live. Free you mind and the rest will follow. :) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 22:26:29 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 22:26:29 -0000 Subject: Bullying/Snape and Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140877 Carol earlier: > > The claim that most potion ingredients are plants or plant parts can't really be supported, either. > So Potions is clearly much more than an extension of Herbology, and a green thumb is no help if you don't have a scientific mind. Snape has both an appreciation of precision and, as we find out in HBP, a knack for experimentation. Neville, it would appear, has neither, and is also nervous, forgetful, and clumsy, which is why Snape finds him so annoying. > > Alla responded: > That is only one Potion, Carol and I did not say that they don't have other ingredients. Carol again: I know you didn't, but the point that Potions is not applied Herbology is important, so I'll cite a few more examples. How about Wit-Sharpening Potion, whose ingredients are ground scarab beetle, cut-up ginger root, and armadillo bile? One ingredient out of three is a plant part. And you snipped my second example, the Draught of Peace, which uses a moonstone in combination with the plant hellebore. Knowing how to grow and harvest hellebore (or where to find a moonstone) doesn't help you to prepare the potion. The Elixir of Life is made from the Philosopher's Stone: no plant ingredients involved. Other non-plant potion ingredients include Acromantula venom, Ashwinder eggs, beetle eyes, caterpillars, powdered unicorn (and bicorn) horn, dragon's blood, frog spawn, possibly Phoenix tears--I could go on, but I think you get the idea. My point is that Herbology would familiarize a student with only about one third or at best one half of the potion ingredients (or at least the plants they come from), and with a general idea of the care and uses of these plants rather than how to use them in preparing the potions, which is of course the Potions master's job. (It's like saying that Care of Magical Creatures helps a student succeed in Potions because unicorn hair and Acromantula venom are sometimes used as potion ingredients. What the students actually learn is how to feed a Flobberworm, how to keep a hippogryff from attacking you, and why some people can't see Thestrals.) How is knowing how to uproot a Mandrake or pop open a Bubotuber pod going to help a student prepare a potion that uses those ingredients? Although I would guess that young Snape excelled at Herbology just because he was driven to excel at most of his subjects, success in one doesn't *necessarily* equate to success in the other, any more than success in Charms guarantees success in Transfiguration (Neville again) even though both subjects involve the use of a wand. Alla wrote: > But I absolutely disagree that you don't need to have a scientific mind in Biology. Carol responds: Oops, Alla. You're crediting me with your own analogy. I never compared Herbology with Biology (or more specifically, Botany, which deals exclusively with plants). That's *your* analogy. And I never said that you don't need a scientific mind for Biology. Of course you do. I said that a wizard doesn't need a scientific for *Herbology*, any more than he needs one for COMC, the WW's closest equivalent to the other main branch of Biology, Zoology. (Surely Hagrid doesn't have a scientific mind though his substitute Professor Grubbly-Plank did at least make the students draw pictures of Bowtruckles, an approach that comes a bit closer to a high school Biology teacher's. I haven't seen any sign of a scientific mind in Professor Sprout, either, but admittedly we don't see much of her.) To get back on topic, a knowledge of Botany (or Zoology) doesn't help a chemist (American sense of the term) to use plant (or animal) ingredients to create Muggle "potions" such as cough medicine or shampoo. They're two completely separate fields. And knowing how to grow and cultivate the plants that end up as ingredients in cough medicine or shampoo is even less helpful in creating the product itself. Alla wrote: > As I said , I did not like it [Biology] much in school, but I sure thought that people who excelled in it had as you put it " apreciation for precision" and "knack for experimentation". In Herbology they often deal with dangerous, poisonous plants and Neville does a superb job of taking care of it. I am sure to cultivate some plants, you have to be very precise in taking care of them. Carol responds: But that's still gardening, or Horticulture if you prefer, not Biology (Botany). You seem to be assuming that I made the Herbology/Biology analogy, which is actually your own, or that I agree with it, which I don't. Look at what the students actually do in Herbology lessons. They're either transplanting seedlings, picking pods, or extracting some sort of essence. They learn how to defend themselves against attack by the plant and a general idea of its uses (e.g., that murtlap essence soothes wounds), but they never examine the plant parts under a microscope or discuss the relationship of one plant to another as a Muggle Biology student would. Anyway, I know you didn't mean to put words in my mouth, but I do wish you had read my argument a little more carefully. Again, I see no evidence that skill in Herbology leads to skill in Potions or vice versa, and Neville seems to be exactly the person to prove the point. Carol From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Sep 28 23:56:26 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:56:26 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: <433AD7EA.3040707@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140878 > M.Clifford wrote: > > > Going off on my own sort of tangent here, I don't think that > > people change. > > Unless their name is James, of course. Right? :-) > > Irene Valky: I've always argued that James didn't change and was always inside the same person, as a bully and as the hero. You must have me confused for someone else, ;D I am sure that we will see in the end of the series, that James' personality was essentially consistent throughout. eg: As a new kid in Hogwarts, he befriended Lupin and he refused to become prejudiced against Lupin when he discovered the Werewolf Secret. He enjoyed the risk and the challenge, and he cared about Lupin. As an older kid he targetted Snape and Bullied him, Snape invented a really dark curse that we know of, and he was deeply enamoured of the Dark Magic that was destroying the world James lived in, Snape *was* pretty dangerous. Again James is doing something that is a risk and a challenge to some degree in taking on Snape, and he hates Dark Arts, which show that he's *caring* about *someone's* (the people he expects Snape to use Dark Magic on) welfare again, even if its not Snape's. Later he Saves Snape from the werewolf at great risk to his life. Again same story - he's into risk and danger, and he's caring about someone's welfare, this time it *is* Snape. All up, the essential James is already pretty consistent IMO. Valky: > that > Lupin is referring only to Snapes actions as of sixth year, is > speculation, albeit fairly well based. Magda: If you look at the context of Lupin's comment, it came during the part where they tell Harry that when James and Lily began going out in 6th year, James had de-swelled his head and stopped hexing people just for the fun of it. Harry asks, even Snape? And they say, well Snape was a special case, he never lost the opportunity to hex James. Harry asks, and Lily was okay with that? And they say, well she didn't know. Valky: I think it says they started seeing each other in seventh year, rather than sixth. Snape therefore must have only hexed James a few times before graduation. Never seems like the wrong word for that, it just does. Magda: So from that context, it's pretty clear that they are talking about what happened AFTER the Pensieve Incident. Now if you want to claim that - in the middle of the conversation about what happened in sixth year - Lupin and Sirius suddenly began describing things that happened in earlier years without letting Harry know that they were switching gears, then be my guest. But I disagree. Valky: Yeah and no. I realise that Lupin did say this in that context, which is why I believe your argument is fairly well based. But then again, we do know that Snape invented and used the curse he invented "for enemies" before that, as well as the levicorpus which became the thing to do in Hogwarts for a quite long season according to Lupin, before the Pensieve. Sirius recalls that Snape liked to be involved in tailing the Marauders to get them in trouble, and he always hated James, according to Dumbledore their relationship was similar to Draco and Harry's in PS/SS, which is definitely an unpleasant one from both sides. I don't think it's in character for Severus Snape to sit on his hands for six years while people get them best of him and his inventions, without at least getting in a couple of stealth shots on the person he hates most to tide him over. I think Lupin was drawing on a needed justification because it was right to tell Harry the truth, but he gave it in generalised language which could mean he was recalling more than just that one year or less in an unspecified way. The fact that he said Snape was a special case, first, definitely IMO implies that the special case applies to the whole of their relationship, not just part. Valky From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 01:32:52 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 01:32:52 -0000 Subject: Snape and Neville/Potions and Herbology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140879 > > Alla responded: > > That is only one Potion, Carol and I did not say that they don't > have other ingredients. > > Carol again: > I know you didn't, but the point that Potions is not applied Herbology > is important, so I'll cite a few more examples. > My point is that Herbology would familiarize a student with only about > one third or at best one half of the potion ingredients (or at least > the plants they come from), and with a general idea of the care and > uses of these plants rather than how to use them in preparing the > potions, which is of course the Potions master's job. Alla: I think we are arguing past each other, Carol. I snipped the examples, because I am not arguing that Potions is an applied Herbology. What I AM arguing though is that they are have enough similar aspects that the student who excels in Herbology CAN be interested in Potions because some of the ingredients ARE plants ( and it is really not important to me whether it be one half , one quarter or one third) Someone who loves as you said caring for plants and uses for them COULD be interested in preparing the potions. I think it is very telling for example that Lexicon lists "One Thousands Magical Herbs and Fungi" as text book for BOTH Potions and Herbology. Now, Potions have another two text books listed, but my point is that for someone who loves Herbology the starting point in becoming interested in Potions could be seeing the SIMILARITIES in two subjects and then MAYBE such student will be interested in differences. > Alla wrote: > > But I absolutely disagree that you don't need to have a scientific > mind in Biology. > > Carol responds: > Oops, Alla. You're crediting me with your own analogy. I never > compared Herbology with Biology (or more specifically, Botany, which > deals exclusively with plants). That's *your* analogy. And I never > said that you don't need a scientific mind for Biology. Of course you > do. I said that a wizard doesn't need a scientific for *Herbology*, > any more than he needs one for COMC, the WW's closest equivalent to > the other main branch of Biology, Zoology. Alla: Sorry for being unclear, but actually what I meant to say is that you need a scientific mind in Herbology. Of course I did not mean to credit you with my analogy. Sorry about that, but again I misspoke in the first place. Again, it is not a precise analogy ( MINE, not yours), but I believe it fits. I don't understand why are you so readily dismiss Herbology as a science. Maybe WW definition of scientific is not as strict as ours. I think knowing precisely what to do with plants and with magical creatures ( how to cultivate them, on which dates to do whatever is required for Mandrakes, etc, could be called scientific) > Carol responds: > But that's still gardening, or Horticulture if you prefer, not Biology > (Botany). You seem to be assuming that I made the Herbology/Biology > analogy, which is actually your own, or that I agree with it, which I > don't. Look at what the students actually do in Herbology lessons. > They're either transplanting seedlings, picking pods, or extracting > some sort of essence. They learn how to defend themselves against > attack by the plant and a general idea of its uses (e.g., that murtlap > essence soothes wounds), but they never examine the plant parts under > a microscope or discuss the relationship of one plant to another as a > Muggle Biology student would. Alla: NO, actually as I said I just made an analogy and run with it. I don't remember saying anywhere in my post that Carol agrees with my analogy. :-) Again, sorry if you understood me as such. My writing skills do need polishing. I think Herbology is BOTH actually ( gardening and botany). Interestingly, Lexicon seems to agree with me too. If you go to search for classes, you will see that they compare Hogwarts classes to Muggle ones and Herbology they classify as botany/gardening ( actually they say that our Neil Ward wrote it) Just to be clear - I am not saying that you agree with it or that this is the only analogy to make. One more thing - on our practical lessons in biology we sometimes did things very similar to what Herbology students do ( non magic related of course, but still very hands on plan cultivation). Maybe they don't need to look at the plant under microscope, because they have a spell, which would reveal what this plant consists of. Carol Again, I see no > evidence that skill in Herbology leads to skill in Potions or vice > versa, and Neville seems to be exactly the person to prove the point. Alla: I told you the reasons on which I am basing my line of reasoning ( which as I said was speculative in the first place), but it fits with me quite well. So, TO ME it is a possibility that the point Neville proves is that Snape killed any interest he may have in Potions from the very beginning. JMO, Alla. From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Sep 29 01:55:45 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 01:55:45 -0000 Subject: OFH! Snape again. WAS: Straightforward readings? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140880 -Jen: > Possibly Snape didn't tell DD the third vow? We've seen loyal > Order members attempt to solve their own problems without > Dumbledore's knowledge and/or agreement: The Secret Keeper plan for > the Potters; Lupin not revealing the animagi in POA; Sirius going to > the DOM, for starters. But if Dumbledore knew everything, then I > agree they planned together to put off the moment as long as > possible, neither knowing Draco was succeeding with the cabinent. houyhnhnm: I am undecided about how much openness existed between Dumbledore and Snape during the sixth year. They could have been working together or separately to keep Draco's plot from coming to a head, but it seems clear that both were doing just that. On the one hand, it seems out of character for Snape to be completely candid about the UV even if he was DD's Man. It's hard to imagine Snape being completely candid with anyone. Dumbledore's remark to Harry that "you might consider the possibility that I understood more than you did" could be construed as meaning, not that Snape had already confided in him, but that knowing about the UV explained some aspects of Snape's behavior--why he was reluctant to investigate Draco as thoroughly as DD would have expected, for instance. On the other hand, there is so much about the relationship between these two that we still don't know, not only DD's "iron-clad reason" for trusting Snape, but why Snape kept Lupin's secret faithfully for so many years in spite of his extreme resentment over the prank. In my wild speculation about what might have taken place between them when Snape was saving Dumbledore from the ring curse, I am not imagining a tender scene in which Snape cried, "Father!", and Dumbledore replied, "Son!", and they embraced. I think a fully conscious recognition of his emotional dependence on Dumbledore would terrify Snape. Rather his need for approval from DD as a father figure was brought just a little closer to consciousness, close enough to make it accessible to Voldemort but not close enough to make Snape wary, and Voldemort pounced on it. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Sep 29 01:56:12 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 01:56:12 -0000 Subject: OFH! Snape again. WAS: Straightforward readings? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140881 > Jen: > That comment & the entire moment still bother me from a > narrative perspective (I think that's the right term). Other people > have mentioned how the howling dog in the background was meant to > bring up Padfoot, and I guess Snape's betrayl of Sirius? But I read > that moment as *Snape* being compared to the howling dog in pain and > found it poignant. Anyone have a thought on this? Valky: Yes I do have a thought on this. I think the poignancy that we are both seeing here is that all three are trapped unable to prevent the destruction going on around them. Fang is trapped in his beloved home as it is being destroyed, unable to prevent it or save himself, Sirius is trapped in his home as the Wizard World he loves is destroyed, also unable to prevent it or save himself, Snape I think, is similarly trapped as the things he has loved are destroyed around him. It goes strongly to a DD's Man Snape that there is an allusion IMO because all three of the characters linked by the analogy have now been called cowards. Fang, always labelled the cowardly big dog, Sirius was goaded by Snape about being a coward when he was confined to GP, and now Harry is calling Snape a coward his reaction is the same as Sirius' one and Fangs one in Hagrids burning hut. It hurts, he's trapped, and theres nothing he can do about it. It's easy to see that I draw a lot from this line in HBP. But the poignancy of it is undeniable, it alludes to Snape in pain through things that are beyond his control, something he would prevent if he could just get out of his shackles. What more needs to be said about that, except to ponder what *really* happened on the Astronomy Tower. > houyhnhnm: > > The real test for Snape would have come when Dumbledore arrived > > back at the castle, poisoned, with no successful Draco plot, no > > DE's in the castle. Would Snape have tried to save Dumbledore's > > life or not? We'll never know and neither will Snape. Hence > > the "DON'T CALL ME COWARD!" Valky: I have read this point of view many times on the list. I think it can be assumed, most of us concur that Dumbledore would have died without Snapes help. But I don't see any one else asking why ESE!Snape killed him again, in that case. I mean, seriously, why? One death is enough for anyone (anyone with a whole soul anyway) right? If the potion was doing the job, then why needs it be done again? I think the potion was primed to kill Dumbledore the second he ran out of fight, or stopped fighting for his life. But then add it together. Voldemorts Deadly potion, bodgy looking Avada Kedavra from Snape, fall from the tower = Only one death. Which one is the odd one out? Which is real killer of a wizard like Dumbledore? It's got to be the potion, hasn't it? But then wouldn't that mean that Harry killed Dumbledore? Why would Dumbledore order Harry to kill him and then order Snape to cover it up? tick tick tick tick.... BRRRRRRRING! Times UP! The Horcrux soul piece was never destroyed by Dumbledore. Oh yeah the ring was destroyed, but the soul piece.. the desperate, fearful and darkly powerful and persuasive piece of Voldemorts soul, nearly kill its attacker and then just keel over itself after such a victory? Not likely. By Dumbledore's account Voldemort won the melee of the ring Horcrux. Snape saved Dumbledores life, and the ring was "....no longer a Horcrux". But did Voldie die in the encounter? Dumbledore never says he did, he never even implies it. And then he gets Harry to kill him one night. How strange... Jen: > The other notable plot development we always see is Voldemort's > ultimate failure: Yes, he opened the chamber but failed to return to > human form; yes he transported Harry to the graveyard, but failed to > kill him; yes, he lured Harry to the DOM, but failed to get the > prophecy; yes, he managed to get Dumbledore killed, but.....? > > (All I know is I'm still waiting for my Dumbledore explanation, and > since we didn't get one in the flesh, I'm waiting for him to do so > via letter, Pensieve, etc.) > Valky: OKay, just assuming that my explanation above is the correct one. Then how could Harry find this out? Heres my favourite theory. 1. Snape will tell Harry. Woot! won't that be Bangy. "You Killed Dumbledore!!" "No I didn't you half-wit, moron. You did!" 2. We will see Harry do it again. But this time knowingly with a long wound out explanation of what's going on lending to how it was forshadowed by Dumbledore. My hypothetical example, based on mythology, is that Aberforth has been watching over someone in the Forbidden Forest, at some point in the past he was trying to actually save this poor bloke who is an old friend Caradoc Dearborn. Caradoc and Aberforth thought they had Voldie figured out after Albus knocked off Grindelwald, and CD tried to off the Hufflepuff Horcrux. Things went pear shaped for them and Caradoc ended up maimed and mortally wounded with a piece of Voldies soul attached to him. Since then he's been hiding out in the FF (see Firenze's conversation with Harry in PS/SS when he says thing"s", not thing) while Aberforth keeps it all hush for him and they try to figure out how to finish the job and save Caradoc who is slowly having his life drained away and turning into a pretty hideous Voldemort type thing himself. Harry finds it all out, and in the end they discover that Caradoc will have to die like Dumbledore, at Harry's hand so they do the deed. 3. Harry will try to destroy another Horcrux but he will be *really* pressed for time when he does it and he'll end up offing someone else..(sob). I really don't think I'll go there yet. Valky From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 29 02:23:39 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 02:23:39 -0000 Subject: OFH! Snape again. WAS: Straightforward readings? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140882 houyhnhnm: Superb! I spent so much time speculating on the literal meaning of Snape's gazing at his own reflection in the Foe Glass, I didn't consider it as a metaphor. Snape is indeed his own worst enemy. Potioncat: There may be something going on with the Foe-Glass, but I think HPfGU discussions have contaminated it. Here's the quote, "Snape followed him, looking into the Foe-Glass, where his own face was still visible, glaring into the room." Although Snape is not reported looking at it again, the glass is mentioned a few more times; all three wizards are reflected. The reflections are glaring into the room although the wizards in question are each doing something else. 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. Houyhnhnm: As for the tower, I think both Snape and Dumbledore tried to prevent such a scene from taking place all year, but once they were all arrived there nobody had a choice. The real test for Snape would have come when Dumbledore arrived back at the castle, poisoned, with no successful Draco plot, no DE's in the castle. Would Snape have tried to save Dumbledore's life or not? We'll never know and neither will Snape. Hence the "DON'T CALL ME COWARD!" Potioncat: My reading of it was that DD was expecting Snape to act as Healer for the injuries he sustained in the cave. But, as you say, they had no choice. Sending this late because I mis-directed it this morning. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 02:31:28 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 02:31:28 -0000 Subject: Identifying Enemies (was:Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140883 > >>Betsy: > > Also, you seem to be suggesting that Snape still acts like a Death > > Eater. Frankly, Molly Weasley seems more anti-muggle to me. Hagrid > > and the twins have participated in more on page muggle baiting than > > Snape has. (Heck, the twins nearly *killed* the muggle they > > baited.) Actually, Snape has *saved* more student's lives than any > > other teacher at Hogwarts, IIRC. Hardly Death Eater behavior, IMO. > >>vmonte: > Here we go again. Face it Betsy, you and I are not reading the same > books. I'm sure that Molly and the twins don't represent the enemy > to JKR either. Betsy Hp: Enemy? Who said anything about enemies? I, for one, would be completely shocked if Hagrid turned out to be a closet Death Eater. However he did physically attack a Muggle child because that child's father angered him. Dudley wasn't seriously hurt (though he was forced to undergo surgery), and I'm sure Hagrid acted out of anger rather than prejudice. But at the same time JKR has never had Snape act in a similar fashion. I seriously doubt Molly is interested in subjugating the Muggle population, but she does consider Muggles as less intelligent or capable than wizards. I think that's why she so quickly believed reports that Hermione was a "scarlet woman". (Who knows how those Muggles had raised the poor girl.) It's a polite form of prejudice, but, again, it's more apparent than any prejudice JKR has shown Snape having. As for the twins.... Okay, I can totally buy at least one of them turning out to be an enemy. (Killing a small animal is not a good sign, even in the Potterverse.) And they *left* (didn't offer so they'd be around if Dudley ate it) a piece of candy that caused Dudley's tongue to swell to such a degree he couldn't breath. If Arthur hadn't been there I think the only possible way Dudley could have been saved is if someone had cut out his tongue. That's pretty darn brutal, IMO. And once more, JKR has failed to have Snape do anything that comes close. 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. ) Betsy Hp From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Sep 29 02:38:28 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 02:38:28 -0000 Subject: Unbrekable Vow as shared hallucination? WAS: Re: OFH! Snape again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140884 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eriphila" wrote: > > I noticed something in rereading that chapter. Snape, the POTIONS > MASTER, has his visitors join him in a drink. To make sure they all > drink he toasts the Dark Lord, and everyone drains their glasses, > except Wormtail, who is sent away but listens at doors. Could the vow > then be a shared hallucination? We see shortly thereafter that F&G are > selling daydreams-in-a-box. I wonder if Wormtail will return to say it > never happened. > > Eriphila. Not a bad idea. I did think it was particularly strange that all of these people, none of whom really trust each other, shared a drink that was prepared by Wormtail, the least trustworthy of all. Obviously they have never studied with Made-Eye Moody. Allie From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Sep 29 02:45:41 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 02:45:41 -0000 Subject: OFH! Snape again. WAS: Straightforward readings? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140885 zgirnius: > It's not the accusation of cowardice per se that gets to him. I'm not > the first to point out that Harry has already made that accusation > earlier in their exchange, and just got an insult about his father > thrown back at him. The difference, to me, is that the second > instance occurs when Harry is defenseless, and says "Kill me like you > killed him, you coward-" which to me, and I believe to Snape, evokes > the killing of Dumbledore (who was also defenseless). houyhnhnm: Snape knew nothing of Harry's encounter with Trelawney. It's unlikely he would have thought of James Potter when Harry said, "...like you killed *him*." Especially since he didn't, in fact, kill James. On the other hand, he had just been standing over a prone figure, wandless and defenceless. From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Sep 29 02:56:59 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 02:56:59 -0000 Subject: Identifying Enemies (was:Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140886 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > Enemy? Who said anything about enemies? I, for one, would be > completely shocked if Hagrid turned out to be a closet Death Eater. > However he did physically attack a Muggle child because that child's > father angered him. Dudley wasn't seriously hurt (though he was > forced to undergo surgery), and I'm sure Hagrid acted out of anger > rather than prejudice. But at the same time JKR has never had Snape > act in a similar fashion. > Allie now: But it wasn't because he was a muggle, it was because they were both "stupid gits." > I seriously doubt Molly is interested in subjugating the Muggle > population, but she does consider Muggles as less intelligent or > capable than wizards. I think that's why she so quickly believed > reports that Hermione was a "scarlet woman". (Who knows how those > Muggles had raised the poor girl.) I never got the impression that Molly believed the story because Hermione is a muggle-born. It's just JKR playing on the press and telling us not to believe everything we read. >And they *left* (didn't offer so > they'd be around if Dudley ate it) a piece of candy that caused > Dudley's tongue to swell to such a degree he couldn't breath. If > Arthur hadn't been there I think the only possible way Dudley could > have been saved is if someone had cut out his tongue. Again - it's only because Dudley's such a little pig that that happens at all. Has nothing to do with being a muggle. (I know this thread was about Snape and being a death eater, but I really don't believe that JKR is painting the twins as anything other than Merry Pranksters, I know this has been the subject of much debate.) Allie From juli17 at aol.com Thu Sep 29 03:01:45 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:01:45 EDT Subject: UV = DDM? Message-ID: <127.659c76c3.306cb319@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140887 Mira wrote: Now, the way I see it, this could have three possible explanations: 1. Dumbledore does not know about the UV, in which case: 1a) Snape is ESE or OFH, or: 1b) Snape did not tell Dumbledore about the UV because he knew that Dumbledore would sacrifice himself and Snape wanted to be the one who dies, but this is completely at odds with how I read Snape's character, or perhaps: 1c) Snape did not tell Dumbledore about the UV because he knew that Dumbledore would ask him to do the murder, and he still hoped that Draco would do it, but this does not agree with the fact the Snape wanted to protect Draco through and through. 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). 3. Dumbledore knows about the UV but does not tell Draco because Draco would know that if the UV has indeed happened, either Dumbledore or Snape would have to die, then he would probably expect Snape to kill Dumbledore anyway and endeavor to do it himself in order to lap up all the glory. There might be less twisted explanations of the scene, but right now I cannot come up with anything else. Of all the possibilities listed above, I must concede that 1a is the least problematic, if not the only one who can sail. 1c might have some merits, too. Julie now: 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: One very important point for me is the timing of the events described in chapters two and three of the HBP. Let me discuss two possible timelines: A) Snape takes the UV, then runs to Dumbledore to tell him, and Dumbledore decides to let Snape kill him. Since it is his last year at Hogwarts anyway, Dumbledore gives Snape the DADA position, Snape remains DDM through and through. B) Dumbledore gives Snape the DADA position, which in turn makes the UV come into being. This is, I believe, the chronology that you also favor, Betsy. My question is: if B is true, why would Dumbledore decide to give Snape the DADA job, in the first place? I believe that the answer is: Dumbledore gave Snape the DADA position deliberately in order to prevent Draco from succeeding in his mission. Snape told Bellatrix in Chapter 2 that Voldemort would have liked Draco to kill Dumbledore and Snape to remain in his position as a spy against the Order. This is, I believe, exactly what Dumbledore wanted to prevent when he made Snape DADA professor. Julie now: 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. Dumbledore probably knew he'd need Snape in that DADA position one day, and he wasn't about to waste him there until the risk of losing him was outweighed by the gain. Whether he gives Snape the position before or after the UV, he also knows if he's gone then Snape is gone. If Snape is ever going to make full use of his spy position and completely infiltrate Voldemort's camp, then this will be the time, since Dumbledore's death--naturally or by someone else's hand--is the event Voldemort is waiting for so he can move into the final phase of his planned takeover of the WW. I also submit that even if Dumbledore isn't dying from the Ring Horcrux, he seems determined to go after another one, which turns out to be in the Cave, and he may know a second horcrux curse in his damaged state *will* kill him. Mira: If this is true, Dumbledore cannot have such a 100% trust in Snape as he pretends. Dumbledore knew the DADA job would bring the worst in Snape, he must have had a very strong reason to take this risk. So Dumbledore certainly accepted to sacrifice himself - not only in order to spare Draco becoming a murderer, but also in order to prevent Snape for staying on at Hogwarts after Dumbledore dies. In this scenario, the fact that Harry was a witness to the crime was (also a) direct results of the DADA jinx, but none of these means that Snape is DDM or that Dumbledore himself really believed in Snape's loyality. Julie: 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: All this leads, I believe, to a decent explanation for Dumbledore's pleading: he did not beg Snape to kill (if 1a then there was no need for Snape to kill Dumbledore) or spare him (since Dumbledore was not afraid of death, indeed, he seemed to have embraced the idea quite early on in Book 6): Dumbledore pleaded with Snape to remain on the side of the good, to continue helping Harry and the Order even if nobody would know about this and even if his faith would be payed with suspicion and hate. This definitely is something which I see Dumbledore pleading for. Julie: I agree that Dumbledore was pleading for Snape to continue protecting Harry, and Hogwarts, and help the Order, even if his only reward was suspicion and hate. 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: In any case, if Dumbledore did not know about the UV then I really don't see much possibility for Snape to be DDM (unless his concern for Draco has always been a facade, but this is not how it sounded to me). Sorry if all this sounds a bit convoluted, it is quite late here, but it is the only time when I can read/reply. Julie: I quite agree that DDM is hard to fathom if Dumbledore didn't know about the UV, but I believe he did, and there are several clues in the book that support that conclusion. Julie __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 03:43:58 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 03:43:58 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140888 > >>Ceridwen: > > I *liked* what I heard in the opening speech. It seemed to me that > here was a teacher who really loved his subject. I was brutally > shocked, meaning I was thrown out of the narrative, when the > narrative itself didn't like him. That didn't make sense to me. It > seemed that the narration was actively trying to influence my > feelings as a reader. Betsy Hp: Exactly my feelings! I think I got that the narrative wasn't fully trustworthy, but I read the book so quickly (in an afternoon) and I wasn't sure if JKR was being serious about the stereotypes (yes, one quarter of the school *is* made up of evil wizards). So I wasn't sure how to see Snape. He seemed so cool, but I wasn't sure if he was supposed to be the cool good guy or the cool villain. And since I just poured through the book there wasn't much time for contemplation. However, I do remember being quite surprised when Harry *continued* hating Snape in the very next book. I thought it'd all been straightened out. Snape was the cool good guy; he'd saved Harry's life. Shouldn't Harry have felt a sort of sheepish, "heh, misjudged you a bit and thanks for saving my life" thing once school started up again? But I thought Harry would get it. Snape was so cool (again), especially when compared to Lockhart. And once more he seemed to be interested in Harry's safety, the school's safety, etc. That Harry was so reluctant to acknowledge that fact was.... Well actually, I thought it sort of amusing in a "when will Harry learn" sort of way. > >>Ceridwen: > > Going back to PS/SS, I thought I would like to be a student in > Potions. Thinking back to all of the encounters between Snape and > Harry, Neville, Hermione, and Ron, and willing myself back to that > first impression, I'm beginning to see something that a thoroughly > objective narrative might have mentioned, but since we only get > Harry's impressions, it never does - Harry and Ron might just be > some disruptive students. Ron made a comment in CoS, I believe it > was, that they had better things to do in Potions than listen to > Snape. > !?! > Better things to do in class than listen to the teacher? If I'd > been even a vaguely serious student in Potions, I might not have > appreciated having them in my class. > Betsy Hp: Absolutely. Actually, Harry and Ron (and even Hermione at times) do act up in Snape's classroom. In GoF, IIRC, they're reading an article on Harry, and yes, Snape catches them and yes, he reads the article, complete with amusing asides, to the rest of the class. Well of course he does! Why on earth were they reading the article in class? (Frankly, it's a strong argument *against* Snape being a sadistic and abusive teacher. Students don't set themselves up so neatly for a sadistic and abusive teacher in my experience.) Also, though he does have a reputation for being strict, none of the other Gryffindors seem to fear him. When Snape makes unfair accusations in Lupin's DADA class both Dean and Padma have no problem directly questioning him. No, Harry definitely has a bias. I think to see Snape with any sort of clarity you have to be aware of Harry's filter and try and work around it. > >>Ceridwen: > I can understand him not caring for Neville blowing things up and > melting cauldrons. > Betsy Hp: And it's possible for me to see Snape's constant riding of Neville (especially in PoA) as an attempt on his part to get Neville through his third year Potions. Neville is in Potions in his fourth year so whatever Snape did must have worked. (I believe it's established that a student can fail a class. Don't Ron and Harry hope this will happen to either Crabbe or Goyle?) > >>Ceridwen: > I am no longer convinced that Snape is bullying anyone. I am > convinced that this is how Harry perceives it. This is how we're > shown it. This is what we come away with. The change I think it > was Betsy mentioning, when Harry tells Snape that he doesn't have > to call him `sir', and the immediate change in the narrative > perception of Snape after that, is a point in favor, and part of > what made me think of this in relation to the bullying threads. > Betsy Hp: Actually, Houyhnhnm is the one who pointed out that the descriptors change with regards to Snape once Harry made the "sir" crack. I do agree that there is a change. I don't think it's necessarily for the better, in that I still don't think Harry is seeing Snape clearly. However there is a certain kind of evolving going on, and Harry is starting to grow up. (Finally developing a bit of sympathy for Draco was a good sign, IMO.) It will be fascinating to see how Snape looks once book 7 is done. (If his hair is described as "silky" in the last chapter, I will die laughing. ) Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 04:05:58 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 04:05:58 -0000 Subject: Harry's bias again WAS: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140889 Betsy Hp: > No, Harry definitely has a bias. I think to see Snape with any sort > of clarity you have to be aware of Harry's filter and try and work > around it. Alla: Hmmm, there are some actions by Snape which luckily could not be described differently, IHarry's POV or not, IMO. For example, the much debated first scene. Are you suggesting that Harry did something wrong here and did not tell us about it at all ? I thought you argued that Snape thought that Harry was a Dark Lord in making and that is why he decided to come down hard on him? Doesn't it show Snape's bias about Harry? > > >>Ceridwen: > > I am no longer convinced that Snape is bullying anyone. I am > > convinced that this is how Harry perceives it. This is how we're > > shown it. This is what we come away with. Alla: But again, quite often we see Snape's ACTIONS, and quite often we hear words , which would be told the same way by anybody. Granted, Snape's "bullying Neville" is subjective ( although I of course think Harry got 100% right :-)), but " I see no difference" to Hermione is completely objective, IMO and anybody would have told us that Snape said those words, although of course if Draco was describing the SCENE we would have got very different picture. But I remain convinced that there is an objective picture of bullying on Snape's behalf, Harry's bias or not. And of course Harry IS biased against Snape, it is just I believe that Snape is the ONLY one to blame for such bias, since when Harry first arrived to the lesson , he had no such bias against Snape. JMO of course, Alla From allilova at davidson.edu Thu Sep 29 02:54:34 2005 From: allilova at davidson.edu (strina_brulyo) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 02:54:34 -0000 Subject: Nagini Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140890 If Nagini turns out to be a horcrux as expected, who do you think will destroy her? Could it be Snape? Two reasons to believe that: ...the famous anagram Severus Snape = Perseus Evans. Perseus is the ancient Greek hero who severed Medusa's head... ...someone pointed out once what his name sounded like: "sever-uh- ssnape" = "sever-a-snake"... Or could it be Ginny who will do it? Again, two reasons: ...getting even with Harry (since he saved her from the Basilisk)... ..."Nagini," where the "Nag" part evokes images of snakes from Eastern mythology, can also be written out as "A Ginni"... If that is true for the snake, then we have three horcruxes remaining - one for each of the Trio to deal with? -Alina From raie8 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 03:59:21 2005 From: raie8 at yahoo.com (raie8) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 03:59:21 -0000 Subject: OFH! Snape again. WAS: Straightforward readings? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140891 My apologies, there are so many good posts relating to this I went crosseyed trying to find the specific ones to site. Hopefully they are still fresh enough for mine to make some sense. When I see Snape, I see someone who doesn't like themselves very much. Yes he can be a nasty person, and very `severe' as it were with people especially subordinates, but I think he is never as much as he is with himself. Like with many of us, he is his own worst critic. As far as him showing remorse and forgiveness, isn't the first and most difficult, step always to forgive your self? In order to love someone aren't we taught that we must first love ourselves? As far as what DD thinks of him, I think he is worried. He still trusts him but Snape is still kind of a wild card. At the end of GoF when he sends Severus back to LV, it is with 'apprehension' in his voice. Also his appearance is more pale and sallow than usual, obviously unnerved and stressed throughout OoP. In HBP he begins to break down during the talk with DD in the forest. "You take too much for granted, I cannot do this anymore" it appears that DD apprehensions are manifesting: He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you(Nietzsche). I think this speculation is well justified, seeing how DD was able to bring him back from the brink once before but under the added pressure and fluid circumstances, he is liable to become what he has fought for so long both in his own mind and in others. Apparently he has been stereotyped/labeled a dark wizard from the beginning. If everyone believes you are bad and that is all they expect and ever see in you, why not give in and go with it? Maybe it will bring you a sense of purpose and belonging. It is a lame excuse, but it happens. That is my belief why he became a DE in the first place, as well as for the power. In HBP after the tower scene when Harry confronts him, I believe this is the pinnacle of Snapes loathing and hatred of himself. Of all the things that he has done, this by far has been the worst/most difficult and will be impossible to forgive himself for. His final act of damnation, if he wasn't tainted enough already, has sealed his fate beyond reproach. I see it as an ultimate sacrifice beyond that of death; this is his soul he is giving up. For someone who has been fighting/struggling his own darkness for so long to place so much trust and faith in their cause and plan is quite commendable. Look what it has done/is doing to him. I cant imagine being forced to make a decision like that but Harry glimpsed its expression on Snape's face. As far as his response of `don't call me coward' and the rage with witch it was imbued, I immediately think of the phrase "so that others may live" the compelling factor for ends justifying the means. It was unavoidable but necessary so that the fight may continue and save many more lives. I agree that DD was as good as dead; the ring weakened him enough for the poison to mortally affect him. It was important that Harry not believe or blame himself for his part in his mentor's demise. (In the cave Harry even thinks and allude to killing DD by feeding him the poison IIRC) as well as for Draco to not have blood on his hands. If Snape does it he spares both of them and improves his status with LV and DE, possibly gaining enough trust to ferret out the remaining hx. It is an unpleasant situation but war does not discriminate and they are fighting for their world as they know it. A stray thought: I think that his bogart is himself, Severus Snape ? just like Neville's. As far as what Snape sees in the mirror of Erise; all that he has ever wanted or sought - respect. Raie (who does not take credit for many of the ideas since they most likely originated from BetsyHp, vmonte, ceridwen, potioncat, etc and everyone else who contributed to this thread) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Sep 29 04:46:53 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 04:46:53 -0000 Subject: OFH! Snape again. WAS: Straightforward readings? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140892 > zgirnius: > People may of course make what they will of the symbolism of there > being an actual howling dog in the background. But the text > presents it your way, so I'd say we would have to agree Snape is > being compared to the dog, whatever other meanings it might > have. Now, finding it poignant or otherwise is of > course left up to the reader. Valky: > It goes strongly to a DD's Man Snape that there is an allusion IMO > because all three of the characters linked by the analogy have now > been called cowards. Fang, always labelled the cowardly big dog, > Sirius was goaded by Snape about being a coward when he was > confined to GP, and now Harry is calling Snape a coward his > reaction is the same as Sirius'one and Fangs one in Hagrids > burning hut. It hurts, he's trapped, and theres nothing he can do > about it. Jen: Both ideas seem compatible after all, and not either/or as I initially thought. I'll admit Sirius never came to mind while reading that passage, but it does work and seems more than coincidental all were called cowards. Not to keep stretching this one passage too thin, but a thought just crossed my mind: I've always wondered *why* Snape goaded Sirius with being a coward in OOTP. Of all the faults Sirius was saddled with, this truly wasn't one of them. What if Snape was thinking about the Potters, though? No matter how many times Dumbledore told Snape that Sirius believed it was a good idea to switch with Peter, Snape would never believe it. He would believe Sirius was a coward, too scared to be the SK and face Voldemort, so he bailed. Hmm, is that another Snape/Harry parallel? Misinterpreting someone's acts as cowardly because you don't know or don't believe the full story? And Zgirnius, what are you saying, poignancy wasn't the universal reaction to this moment? ;) Zgirnius: > Although I really find the suggestion of houyhnhnm above pretty > neat as well. That after making the Vow Snape has wondered himself > whether he would have the guts to make the "right choice" of > dying, but finds in the end that circumstances have made the issue > rather murkier than he expected it would be. So he'll never know > if he would under other circumstances have acted differently. Jen: Thinking of Sirius above, this struck me as a very similar situation--neither Snape nor Sirius found out if they could follow through with the vows they made. JKR told us Sirius would die for the three people he loved more than anyone, that she really believes that's part of his character. Could Snape? Saraquel: > The question is, will we get the explanation from DD or Snape? > Would DD leave anything "in writing" so to speak, lying around. He > was always incredibly careful about who was allowed to know what, > and was a master at concealing and revealing (or - from another > POV -was also caught in his own Spinners End!) Jen: There's one important letter Dumbledore left in safe-keeping, and I'm hoping against hope Harry will convince Petunia to let him read it during his last stay at Privet Dr. Maybe Snape does know everything Dumbledore will say in the letter, but at least it would be in Dumbledore's words. Like you said though, no one else is left who can tell Harry about the ring Horcrux, and maybe the night at GH. Saraquel: > If Snape is on the side of the Order (I'm still not quite > comfortable calling him DDM) then he has every reason to contact > Harry. Harry's only reasons for contacting Snape (that I can think > of off hand at the time of writing) are to find out what happened > with the Ring horcrux, vengeance for DDs death and (for our > satisfaction)an explanation of why DD trusted him. Which is an > interesting combination. Luckily for us, extracting information > can't be done after death, so Harry has got to talk to Snape first > and hopefully you'll get your information Jen, but will Harry be > able to trust it? Jen: I find it so hard to imagine a scenario where Snape would actually give Harry any information. Besides blowing his cover to Voldemort, he just has this ingrained pattern of witholding things Harry wants and needs. Or maybe you're thinking this would come after Snape denies Voldemort and is a free man (so to speak)? Maybe with nothing to lose, and not having to practice Occlumency, we'll get to see a different Snape. Even at Spinner's End, I think we're getting the Snape show, a facade, part truth & part lies. I'm so curious to know who he is underneath that performance, or if the performance is all he has left. You mentioned the possiblity of Dobby passing information from Snape to Harry and that's a really clever idea. Harry would believe Dobby, and it's not so heavy-handed as Fawkes delivering the message. My jury is still out on whether Fawkes will help prove Snape's loyalty, but he did go somewhere, and you don't get the sense a person inherits a phoenix, you know? More that the phoenix chooses the owner. (P.S.--you're right about the Pensive, hiding memories in there wouldn't protect them from Voldemort. Darn it! Will have to re-think that one.) houyhnhnm: > On the one hand, it seems out of character for Snape to be > completely candid about the UV even if he was DD's Man. It's hard > to imagine Snape being completely candid with anyone. Dumbledore's > remark to Harry that "you might consider the possibility that I > understood more than you did" could be construed as meaning, not > that Snape had already confided in him, but that knowing about the > UV explained some aspects of Snape's behavior--why he was > reluctant to investigate Draco as thoroughly as DD would have > expected, for instance. Jen: I'm not sure what to make of that cryptic comment by DD. My inital read was Dumbledore believed he knew everything there was to know, everything Snape knew. Therefore, he didn't know about the vanishing cabinent because Snape didn't know. Musing about this makes me think Dumbledore did *not* think he was dying from the ring horcrux in HBP. Otherwise he wouldn't still be witholding information from Harry that's crucially important, like why he trusted Snape, and to come clean about whatever he knows regarding GH. Those are one in the same, I guess, if his trust is based on Snape's story. houyhnhnm: > In my wild speculation about what might have taken place between > them when Snape was saving Dumbledore from the ring curse, I am not > imagining a tender scene in which Snape cried, "Father!", and > Dumbledore replied, "Son!", and they embraced. I think a fully > conscious recognition of his emotional dependence on Dumbledore > would terrify Snape. Rather his need for approval from DD as a > father figure was brought just a little closer to consciousness, > close enough to make it accessible to Voldemort but not close > enough to make Snape wary, and Voldemort pounced on it. Jen: That's even more believeable on Voldemort's part, and more true to Snape's character. You're right about the terror. I wasn't exactly imagining an embrace, but a moment when Dumbledore could no longer hold back whatever feelings he has for Snape, especially if he was dying and needed to say something before it was too late. But that probably doesn't fit because Dumbledore, even in death, would not betray Snape to Voldemort in a moment of selfishness. And the 'son' bit I was referring to in the last post was mostly symbolic, because there does seem to be a bit of sibling rivalry between Harry/Snape at times, jealousy as a motivating factor, if more for Snape than Harry. Jen, who wants to answer Valky's post more fully but will have to wait until tomorrow. From oppen at mycns.net Thu Sep 29 04:52:03 2005 From: oppen at mycns.net (ericoppen) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 04:52:03 -0000 Subject: Draco's symptoms in HBP---my own theory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140893 Rereading HBP, I was struck by the description of Draco Malfoy's symptoms. Pale, listless, wan, off his feed---this being a fantasy novel, these symptoms do not add up to "werewolf," at least in my experience. They DO, however, practically scream "VAMPIRE!!!" For the gods' sake, this sort of thing is classical Vampire Victim Syndrome! And if Drakey-wakey found that part of the bargain he had to make with Lord Voldemort was being regular snacktime for a hungry vampire, that would explain also why he was so very troubled. He probably had an image of himself, heroic in his DE robes, wielding magickal power and striking down the unworthy, not being used as a human bloodbank to keep a vampire alive. Hmmm...an acronym, an acronym, what shall I do for an acronym? How about DAVE---Draco As Vampirically Edible? From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Thu Sep 29 05:48:14 2005 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 05:48:14 -0000 Subject: Draco's symptoms in HBP---my own theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140894 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ericoppen" wrote: > Rereading HBP, I was struck by the description of Draco Malfoy's > symptoms. Pale, listless, wan, off his feed---this being a fantasy > novel, these symptoms do not add up to "werewolf," at least in my > experience. > > They DO, however, practically scream "VAMPIRE!!!" For the gods' sake, > this sort of thing is classical Vampire Victim Syndrome! Or mayhap we should just Occam-Razor it: DM was under an unprecedented level of stress that he was not prepared to deal with, and reacted the same way that most ill-prepared individuals react, i.e., very poorly. - CMC (who does not believe that FEMA is disproportionately staffed by vampires) From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Thu Sep 29 05:49:26 2005 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 05:49:26 -0000 Subject: FILK: Why? 'Cause I'm a Spy! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140895 Why? 'Cause I'm a Spy! (HBP, Chap. 2) To the tune of Why? 'Cause I'm a Guy! from the 1996 musical revue I Love You, You're Perfect, Now Change! Lyrics at: http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/iloveyouyoureperfectnowchange/whycausei maguy.htm THE SCENE: Spinner's End. SNAPE responds to some constructive criticism from BELLATRIX SNAPE (spoken) Before I answer you - oh yes, Bellatrix, I am going to answer! 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! Before I answer you, I say, let me ask a question in turn . (music) With Dumble I'm chumming At Hogwarts I'm slumming My nose I'm not thumbing Why? 'Cause I'm a spy! I often aid Potter It's not safe to slaughter That filthy young rotter Why? 'Cause I'm a spy! I Quirrell resisted The Order assisted Allegiances twisted Why? 'Cause I'm a spy! The Dark Lord I'm serving Tells me I'm deserving My neck I'm preserving Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? I'll take your Vow! BELLATRIX & NARCISSA: Vow! SNAPE, BELLATRIX & NARCISSA That is Unbreakable! SNAPE 'Cause I'm a Voldy-loving Death-Eating Mind-reading Potter-hating Half-Blood Prince-ing ESE!-ing Always-make-a-malediction Spy! (Spoken, yelled) Yeahhhhh! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 08:15:03 2005 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 08:15:03 -0000 Subject: Nagini In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140896 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "strina_brulyo" wrote: > If Nagini turns out to be a horcrux as expected, who do you think > will > destroy her? > I do not thinkg Nagini is a horcrux at all..... I think voldie may think she is one... However, in HBP, we see the control morphin has over snakes...and when he's dead...he's dead...no horcrux there---despite the control of serpents. The fact that voldie thinks he has more control over nagini after Mr. Bryce's death means nothing to me...(because this is the sort of thing Voldy is mistaken about---probably due to his diminished soul!) If no one believe's Harry is or has a horcrux....then one must wonder if Arthur Weasly is/has one!(due to some horcrux theories out there). I don't think Nagini is a horcrux due to Arthur's survival...also because I think harry's scar is absolutely a horcrux! From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 08:19:34 2005 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 08:19:34 -0000 Subject: Not a Dark Mark ? In-Reply-To: <20050928204711.54681.qmail@web61220.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140897 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Jaja Redor wrote: > Ceridwen: > > > > I don't think, after re- reading certain parts and mulling over Harry's obsession with Draco - Harry would have noticed a pattern of full-moon disappearances, wouldn't he? - that Draco is a werewolf > As whinny as Draco is....as harry saw lupin over the Christmas holidays...as Draco was not absent during full moon(due to b-days happening around him)...I think Draco is a DE...(the one thing Draco would not whine openly about..).. The one thing about HBP...we never hear draco whine apart from when madam maulkin was tailoring one of his sleeves in her shop.. DD From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 09:24:40 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:24:40 -0000 Subject: Bullying/Snape and Neville and a bit of Harry too In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140898 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Alla wrote: > > > > > > Oh, personall attention in a sense of turning Neville away from > Potions forever? I think it was Amiable Dorsai who so eloquently said > that because of Snape Neville has no hope of advancing in the > subject which is closely related to his best subject. > > Pippin responded: > Now this is a stretch, IMO. There are loads of people who love gardening but hate to cook. I'm sure there are plenty of opportunities for herbologists that don't involve NEWT class potion-making. Amiable Dorsai: I'm sure you're right. But mastery of a subject involves knowledge of its adjuncts. To push your cooking analogy a bit further, it would behoove a master gardener to know that a chef who wishes to make tomato sauce would likely prefer roma tomatoes to beefsteaks, and that you get more flavor out of many herbs if you gather them in the morning before the sun has had a chance to vaporize some of their essential oils. To bring it back to the subject at hand, look at the interaction between Sprout and Slughorn just before Aragog's funeral. Sprout's no Potions Mistress, but she understands and appreciates Slughorn's concerns and can help him all the better because of it. Slughorn is, in effect, a customer for Sprout's wares. Imagine if she regarded his use for them with fear and loathing. (not saying that Neville's outlook on Potions is that bad, but if it was, who could blame him?) Amiable Dorsai From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 09:31:19 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:31:19 -0000 Subject: Identifying Enemies (was:Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140899 > Betsy Hp: > > I seriously doubt Molly is interested in subjugating the Muggle > population, but she does consider Muggles as less intelligent or > capable than wizards. I think that's why she so quickly believed > reports that Hermione was a "scarlet woman". (Who knows how those > Muggles had raised the poor girl.) It's a polite form of prejudice, > but, again, it's more apparent than any prejudice JKR has shown Snape > having. a_svirn: Less intelligent? "Canon", please. I don't remember her ever saying anything of the sort. Less capable? Well, they are, aren't they? There is no way around that one. As for her reaction to Rita's insinuations, for one thing, she did NOT believe Hermione a "scarlet woman". (Not a polite thing to say by any stretch of imagination. Politeness is not Molly's forte at all.) We know from Ron that she uses this expression, but she never hurled the invective in Hermione's way. Granted, she was quick to believe at least part of Rita's lies, but I doubt it has anything to do with Hermione's humble origins. She would be suspicious of any potential girlfriend of her precious boys, be they of the muggle, wizard or veela provenance. > Betsy Hp > > As for the twins.... Okay, I can totally buy at least one of them > turning out to be an enemy. a_svirn: Which one? From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 10:04:19 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:04:19 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140900 > > zgirnius: > > Except that this is not mentioned in answer to Harry's question about > an attack "for no reason". Sirius just says he's not proud of their > behavior, and he and Remus enter into an explanation of how "cool", > popular, and brilliant James and Sirius were. That James reformed is > brought up later, when Harry wonders why Lily ever started to like > James. Finwitch: Reassuring James' wasn't ALL bad (telling all the good sides, that is) was important too - just as important as the stopping part. It did ease Harry about his father. Badmouthing Snape in this incident would have made matters worse. I bet Sirius and Lupin could identify the memory-- > zgirnius: > > Lupin is clearly concerned about the Occlumency lessons continuing, > since it belatedly occurs to him that of course this whole incident > may have caused a problem. So is Sirius. However, Sirius hasn't shied > away from saying bad things about Snape in Harry's presence in the > past. Of course, those things were said in Snape's presence too, > Sirius may not really have been able to help himself despite these > concerns... Finwitch: That incident happened before Sirius got worried about Harry's Occlumency-lessons. That was when Snape comes up and tells Harry (after questioning Sirius' presence in Sirius' own house in a matter concerning his godson) that Dumbledore told him to teach Occlumency. You'll notice that Sirius questions this. "Why you?" - I think it's not merely about Snape teaching, but also Snape informing. Sirius is to take Snape's word on this...? And I bet Sirius had a good guess on what might happen to his poor godson in these lessons... I'd say Sirius demanded Phineas to tell Dumbledore to pay a visit and had a heated discussion with Dumbledore about this special lesson-plan. As I saw it, Sirius was mainly upset because these Order-members were stepping over his status as Harry's godfather and appointed guardian. You know, it's bad enough with Crouch' having put him into Azkaban where he spent 12 years with Dementors - without so much as a trial - for something he didn't do - meaning he hasn't been able to do his duty as Godfather. Then, Dumbledore &al. know he's innocent, even if WW on the whole doesn't - and he *did* get to do godfathering for a year - I think he felt very much betrayed when people who ought to know he's innocent ignore his godfatherhood and even act to prevent him acting like one. That's very deep insult to him. > zgirnius: > > I personally don't find Snape's actions in the Shack all that > incomprehensible or obkectionable. Finwitch: Well, that he flat out refused to listen is that to me. You know, Lupin used Legilimency to get the truth out of Sirius first thing. (it's pretty obvious from the description now that we know about them.) We know (per OOP) that Snape can do that, too. He keeps doing that to Harry. Why didn't he do it to Sirius as well? He flat out refuses to listen-- to even consider the possibility that Sirius might be innocent - just because of a teenage grudge. And IMO Snape's been acting like a teenager troughout all the books. Harry's entitled to that because he IS one. Snape ought to have grown out of it by now. He has spent several years surrounded by Dumbledore's trust - whereas Sirius spent 12 years alone with Dementors, which does tend to cause insanity. (Obsession in Sirius' case. Lucky for him, that got him out) Finwitch From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Sep 29 10:42:15 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:42:15 -0000 Subject: Harry's bias again WAS: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140901 Alla: > > Hmmm, there are some actions by Snape which luckily could not be > described differently, IHarry's POV or not, IMO. > > For example, the much debated first scene. Are you suggesting that > Harry did something wrong here and did not tell us about it at all ? > > I thought you argued that Snape thought that Harry was a Dark Lord > in making and that is why he decided to come down hard on him? > > Doesn't it show Snape's bias about Harry? Ceridwen: Actually, Betsy was replying to what I said. I was giving my impressions of the first Potions class, and going back to my own school days as well. I recall people in class doing things like trimming each others' hair, doodling, reading magazines, just being bored, and so forth, which draw the teacher's eye. When caught out by the teacher, they honestly don't know why they're in trouble or why the teacher is 'picking on them'. At that point, HBP had not been written, so we don't have Snape's explanation for anything. And, I don't quite trust his explanation to Bella, who was doing some picking on Snape herself at the time. I do think Harry might display himself in class as someone who *has* to be there, and a teacher who can come up with a spiel like the one Snape delivers in the first class, wouldn't care to see an unwilling student. They do tend to ignore lessons (as Harry, Ron and Hermione have done since), and at the worst end of the spectrum, they can disrupt the class so others won't learn. Harry wouldn't realize this is what he's doing. Very few kids do. Even the ones who are doing something, like doodling or reading magazines, still think the teacher is in the wrong for singling them out: 'Yeah, I was writing Mary + John, but he didn't have to go making such a big deal out of it'. Or, Harry might have been engaging in other behavior which doesn't seem out of line to him, but which, seen by someone else, comes across as wrong. Again, he may not notice. But Snape would. Alla: > > But again, quite often we see Snape's ACTIONS, and quite often we > hear words , which would be told the same way by anybody. Ceridwen: And if Harry heard him telling Draco the same things, he wouldn't get upset at all, or think it was out of line. Alla: > Granted, Snape's "bullying Neville" is subjective ( although I of > course think Harry got 100% right :-)), but " I see no difference" > to Hermione is completely objective, IMO and anybody would have told > us that Snape said those words, although of course if Draco was > describing the SCENE we would have got very different picture. Ceridwen: And McGonagall and others have made sarcastic comments without a judgement filter being thrown into the scene. Her homework in spite of Death To Us All comment is sarcastic, and could be taken as her not caring for Harry, Ron or Hermione. But there is no value placed in narrative for that one, while there is with Snape's comment. I think we're *supposed* to think, feel, and learn along with, Harry. Alla: > But I remain convinced that there is an objective picture of > bullying on Snape's behalf, Harry's bias or not. > > And of course Harry IS biased against Snape, it is just I believe > that Snape is the ONLY one to blame for such bias, since when Harry > first arrived to the lesson , he had no such bias against Snape. Ceridwen: But, he did. One of the Weasleys tipped him off to the 'awful' teacher before they got there. As I mentioned in my first post about this, the youngest sold PS/SS at a yard sale to get some spending money (and not have to pack so much when we moved), so I really can't find the reference. But he's pegged as a suspected former DE, someone loyal to the guy who killed Harry's parents, before they even got to school or to class. I'd be a bit miffed at having to sit under the instruction of someone who supported my parents' killer. No, I'd probably be angry and unwilling to take an active part. And, Snape was also said to be prejudiced against Gryffindors. Later, Harry is sorted, after arguing with the Hat, into Gryffindor, based largely upon what the Weasleys told him about Slytherin. So he's already expecting bad treatment, on two levels. And, he's probably presenting his expectations. Unknowingly, of course, so he's completely in the dark about any culpability on his part. Snape's already primed for the 'celebrity', and his own prejudices of James, and what he expects the son will be like do come into play. But at the time, we don't know that, either. So, Snape sees the 'celebrity', bored at being there, too good for the rest of the class, and decides to make an example. Which a lot of teachers do. I've had that happen to people in classes over the years: 'Just because you're on the football team doesn't mean you will get a pass in my class. Sit up and pay attention'. And of course, the student this is directed to, doesn't realize he was doing anything other than just sitting there. This is, of course, how it seems to me. Ceridwen. From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 10:49:25 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:49:25 -0000 Subject: Identifying Enemies/Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140902 Betsy: > >And they *left* (didn't offer so > > they'd be around if Dudley ate it) a piece of candy that caused > > Dudley's tongue to swell to such a degree he couldn't breath. If > > Arthur hadn't been there I think the only possible way Dudley > could > > have been saved is if someone had cut out his tongue. Allie: > Again - it's only because Dudley's such a little pig that that > happens at all. Has nothing to do with being a muggle. Finwitch: You know - Fred *dropped* it. (both he and Arthur know he did on purpose, though, but that's beside the point) He *does* have a valid point on it being Dudley's fault he ate it. An honest person would have given it back to Fred (or Arthur if he had already left) in which case Dudley wouldn't have been subject to the Ton Tongue effect. It was, in effect, in nature of a theft. Arthur's objection - 'you know he's on a diet...' - all the more reason for Dudley NOT to eat a toffee, wouldn't you say? Dudley probably began to follow his diet even when his Mommy wasn't there (in fear of another case like that) and we see him in much better shape in OOP than he was in GoF. It was actually good for him, in a way... Finwitch From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Sep 29 11:27:49 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:27:49 -0000 Subject: Identifying Enemies/Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140903 Hickengruendler: I have very mixed feelings bout the twins. On the one hand, I think they can be highly entertaining, particularly when they make Umbridge's life a hell, and I don't think they will ever be Harry's enemies. However, on the other hand, there are things like the Dudley incident, in which they went way far too far and which are not funny at all, IMO. > Finwitch: > > You know - Fred *dropped* it. (both he and Arthur know he did on > purpose, though, but that's beside the point) He *does* have a valid > point on it being Dudley's fault he ate it. > > An honest person would have given it back to Fred (or Arthur if he had > already left) in which case Dudley wouldn't have been subject to the > Ton Tongue effect. It was, in effect, in nature of a theft. 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. However, I don't even think giving Dudley that candy was the worst thing they did this day. The worst thing was *leaving*. If they had stayed and made sure that Dudley would have eaten the Toffee as long as they were around, or if they had least *tried* to delay their departure, then it wouldn't have been as bad. But in calmly leaving they made it obvious, that they didn't care if Dudley had died, or that they didn't consider the possibility that her products could end in any really bad results. Sure, Arthur was still there to fix the damage, but that was solely by accident and JKR's good will. The twins had nothing to do with it. If Dudley had eaten the Toffee one minute later, he might very well have died. Until book 5, I thought it was simply that JKR and I have a completely different sense of humour, and that JKR can laugh at such black humour, as long as nothing really serious happens, while I can't. But now I'm not so sure about this anymore. The twins sort of got their come-uppance for pushing Montague into the Vanishing cabinet and not caring at all for what happened to him. It led to the Death Eaters storming the castle, and in Fred and George's own brother being disfigured forever. From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 11:28:55 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:28:55 -0000 Subject: Harry's bias again WAS: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140904 > > Ceridwen: > > I do think Harry might display himself in class as someone who *has* > to be there, and a teacher who can come up with a spiel like the one > Snape delivers in the first class, wouldn't care to see an unwilling > student. -- Harry wouldn't realize this > is what he's doing. Very few kids do. -- Or, Harry might have been engaging in other behavior which > doesn't seem out of line to him, but which, seen by someone else, > comes across as wrong. Again, he may not notice. But Snape would. Finwitch: You know, I think you have a clear picture of this. In the first scene - Harry's taking notes out of Snape's speech. In the book we get only Harry's point of view -- he really does NOT see any reason why Snape would pick on him. But - Snape did not see what Harry was writing and it may well have appeared to him that Harry wasn't paying attention. (The Movie-version makes this *obvious*, as it shows Draco's fascinated face in contrast to Harry's concentrated writing. AND all of this more or less from outsider-pov. Nice addition, IMO). However, as different people learn in different ways - that which may appear as 'disturbance' of class might actually be a learning method to the one doing it. (Harry's taking notes makes this obvious). A kinetic learner requires movement in order to learn. And what disturbs is also different. Some might actually find silence and stillness as so disturbing that the demand prevents their learning... In addition, people are different in how easily they're disturbed (or distracted). One consentrates fully to one task and just about nothing can break it, another does 7 things at the same time (socialising, learning etc.) It's a personality trait and appeals equally for work and entertainment. Finwitch From A.E.B.Bevan at open.ac.uk Thu Sep 29 11:30:26 2005 From: A.E.B.Bevan at open.ac.uk (Edis) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:30:26 -0000 Subject: Spinners End - who was there? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140905 The Spinner's End scene is clearly a crucial one. But I have a subversive thought. We have had Polyjuice Potion as a recurring theme and I sometimes wonder if Dumbledore has used it to insert himself into other's meetings to eavesdrop. Doing efficently what Harry does clumsily in CoS. When I first read Spinner's End I wondered if Snape was in fact Dumbledore transfomed into Snape's form. Dumbledore was after all once Transfiguration Teacher at Hogwarts. This would require Snape to produce good quality Polyjuice with his own hair in it for Dumbledore's use, and hide while Dumbledore assumed his identity. In this variation it is Dumbledore in Snapes bodily form who takes the unbreakable vow. Now this obviously complicates the operation of the vow -it introduces paradoxes. When I read about Dumbledore's blasted wand hand in the next chapter I wondered if this was as the result of trying to get round the consequences of the paradoxical vow. I got swept on with the story as usually understood but I do wonder about my first thoughts... If Snape never took the vow but Dumbledore was under complex restraints from the consequences of his undercover operations. Edis From bob.oliver at cox.net Thu Sep 29 07:09:03 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 07:09:03 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140906 > Betsy Hp: > Actually, Houyhnhnm is the one who pointed out that the descriptors > change with regards to Snape once Harry made the "sir" crack. I do > agree that there is a change. I don't think it's necessarily for the > better, in that I still don't think Harry is seeing Snape clearly. > However there is a certain kind of evolving going on, and Harry is > starting to grow up. (Finally developing a bit of sympathy for Draco > was a good sign, IMO.) It will be fascinating to see how Snape looks > once book 7 is done. (If his hair is described as "silky" in the > last chapter, I will die laughing. ) > And I will vomit all over the book at such incredibly poor writing if such does indeed turn out to be the case. It would be equivalent, IMO, to Harry waking up in the closet at Privet Drive, eleven years old again and finding it was all a dream. Luckily, as JKR has said she regards Snape as "horrible" and "sadistic" and guilty of "abusing his power," I don't think we will see such a contrived and unbelievable reversal. Now, we may well see more revelations, I will be shocked if we don't. But Snape NOT a bully to Harry and the other kids? Snape NOT a reprehensible and twisted product of fascination with the Dark Arts? Snape NOT a horrible, sadistic, and poor teacher? Snape NOT someone who faces very stiff punishment for his inexcusable actions throughout the entire series? In short, Snape NOT what he has been portrayed as in every word and scene ever written about him? Excuse me, but I think I'm going to die of laughter right now :). Lupinlore From raie8 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 04:29:39 2005 From: raie8 at yahoo.com (raie8) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 04:29:39 -0000 Subject: Snape as a bully? (was Bullying was Prodigal Son) In-Reply-To: <433A8535.7411.408A79E@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140907 >shaun posted: > Is Snape a bully? Ooh, that is a very hard question - because like so many others it depends a lot on the definitions that you use. > To me, part of what makes somebody a bully is their motivation - a > bully bullies out of selfish self-gratification. > Snape is nasty. That doesn't make him a bully. > Maybe - but honestly, given what we actually see in canon - a boy who is bullied himself, and worse than that seems to be so unpopular that even people who aren't bullying him laugh at what happens to him, and > the only person who comes to his aid does so, certainly not because > she is his friend - but just because she is a decent person... > > I really wonder did Snape join that gang of Slytherins, not because > he was a bully, but because he wanted protection from them. > Raie: I don't see Snape so much as a bully, but just vindictive. The original spells were self protection perhaps inspired by the fact he was constantly picked on and singled out, what better way to not appear weak and a victim than to invent dark spells. If you act strange or dangerous people will usually leave you alone. He insulted Lilly in response to the added humiliation of being rescued by girl and appearing weak. We have seen him being picked on at school and at least a witness to, if not a receiver of, domestic violence at home. I see him taking out his anger and frustrations by inventing/dreaming up curses to get even by humiliating and even mortally wounding his tormentors. I doubt that he really wanted to use them on the inspiring targets; originally it was about releasing his anger by focusing on creating them and fantasizing about who to try them on. His success probably abated his thirst for revenge and gave him a sense of accomplishment, boosting his very low self esteem. It seems that from an early age he had a talent for that sort of thing. No doubt adding to his reputation and making his social acceptance even more difficult. He strikes me as a very shy and guarded boy, afraid to let anyone close, because he has been hurt before and lacks social skills to cope. He adopts a defense mechanism of isolating himself to prevent further injuries. Shaun: > The only real evidence I can see that Snape was a bully at school > comes from Lily. > > 'I don't want you to make him apologise,' Lily shouted, rounding on > James. 'You're as bad as he is.' Raie: I think here she is referring to Snape's uncouth comment and not the fact that he was a bully like James but just as rude and immature. She was trying to make a point by comparing James to Severus, thus insulting them both. yet more ramblings from Raie....The only means of strengthening one's intelligence is to make up one's mind about nothing-- to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts. (John Keats) Raie. From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 12:21:48 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:21:48 -0000 Subject: Harry's bias again WAS: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140908 > Alla: ... And of course Harry IS biased against Snape, it is just I believe that Snape is the ONLY one to blame for such bias, since when Harry first arrived to the lesson , he had no such bias against Snape. > > Ceridwen: > But, he did. One of the Weasleys tipped him off to the 'awful' > teacher before they got there. As I mentioned in my first post > about this, the youngest sold PS/SS at a yard sale to get some > spending money (and not have to pack so much when we moved), so I > really can't find the reference. But he's pegged as a suspected > former DE, someone loyal to the guy who killed Harry's parents, > before they even got to school or to class. Amiable Dorsai: All I can find is this: "Who's that teacher talking to Professor Quirrell?" he asked Percy. "Oh, you know Quirrell already, do you? No wonder he's looking so nervous, that's Professor Snape. He teaches Potions, but he doesn't want to -- everyone knows he's after Quirrell's job. Knows an awful lot about the Dark Arts, Snape."--Sorcerer's Stone Nobody said anything about Death Eaters. I suppose you could hypothesize that Harry had a bias against Snape because he felt pain in his scar when Snape looked at him in the Great Hall (though I see little sign of such), but I couldn't find any reference to Snape as a possible supporter of He-Who-Must-Be-Suffocating-Under-That-Turban before Harry's first Potions class. Amiable Dorsai From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 12:48:27 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:48:27 -0000 Subject: Harry's bias again WAS: Bullying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140909 i> > Alla: > ... And of course Harry IS biased against Snape, it is just I believe > that Snape is the ONLY one to blame for such bias, since when Harry > first arrived to the lesson , he had no such bias against Snape. > > > > Ceridwen: > > But, he did. One of the Weasleys tipped him off to the 'awful' > > teacher before they got there. But he's pegged as a suspected > > former DE, someone loyal to the guy who killed Harry's parents, > > before they even got to school or to class. > > Amiable Dorsai: > All I can find is this: >> Nobody said anything about Death Eaters. > > I suppose you could hypothesize that Harry had a bias against Snape > because he felt pain in his scar when Snape looked at him in the Great > Hall (though I see little sign of such), but I couldn't find any > reference to Snape as a possible supporter of > He-Who-Must-Be-Suffocating-Under-That-Turban before Harry's first > Potions class. Alla: Oh, you just provided the very same quote, I wanted to provide. So, no, I disagree with Ceridwen that Harry arrived to the first Potions class with any kind of bias against Snape. Indeed, nobody told anything about Snape's connections with DE, but even if they DID, I would want to HEAR it from narrator that Harry was afraid to go to first potions class or something like that. I don't remember reading anything to that effect. What I DO remember reading is that " LIke Mcgonagall, Snape had a gift for keeping class quiet" ( paraphrase). It seems to me like a quite POSITIVE first view evaluation for someone whose Harry has alleged bias against. He does not say Snape made class shut up, he says Snape had a gift for keeping class quiet. If Harry has any kind of bias before the first lesson, it is an unknown to us, IMO. So, I do find Snape attack to be despicable not only because of Harry IMO did nothing wrong, but because Harry arrives to the world completely unknown to him and is more nervous than purebloods students who at least know what they are dealing with , sort of. JMO of course, Alla From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Sep 29 04:44:27 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 00:44:27 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Identifying Enemies (was:Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons) References: Message-ID: <010701c5c4b0$7cc37680$3b98400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 140910 Betsy Hp: >> Enemy? Who said anything about enemies? I, for one, would be >> completely shocked if Hagrid turned out to be a closet Death >> Eater. However he did physically attack a Muggle child because >> that child's father angered him. Dudley wasn't seriously hurt >> (though he was forced to undergo surgery), and I'm sure Hagrid >> acted out of anger rather than prejudice. But at the same time >> JKR has never had Snape act in a similar fashion. Allie: > But it wasn't because he was a muggle, it was because they were both > "stupid gits." Magpie: Betsy just said she wasn't arguing that Hagrid was a DE or acting out of prejudice (that's a strawman), just that as it happens, Snape has never gotten a scene where he's done anything to any Muggle and it just so happens Hagrid gave one's child a tail in anger that had to be surgically removed in hospital. (Which is, imo, Muggle-baiting by defintion--you're not supposed to tease or harm Muggles with Magic that they can not use back at you--why should it matter whether the Muggle is a jerk or not? When it comes to Muggle-baiting the MUGGLE part is more important than the BAITING part.) Betsy's point is perfectly true: if DEs are about harming Muggles, we haven't seen Snape do that yet in canon. He's never been in any scenes with Muggles as far as we know. That doesn't prove he's a nice guy or didn't possibly murder Muggles as a DE, or that he's DDM now. But Betsy was only saying that we've never seen him "acting like a DE" in that way in the series. Allie: > I never got the impression that Molly believed the story because > Hermione is a muggle-born. It's just JKR playing on the press and > telling us not to believe everything we read. Magpie: That was the main point of the story (though I admit I do wonder if Molly is more likely to mistrust Hermione given her beng Muggleborn) but Molly's reaction to the Skeeter articles was not the main point. The main point is that if DEs talk about Muggles as inferior then we don't have many examples of Snape talking about Muggle things as inferior or otherwise. We have more examples of Molly doing that. This does not mean Molly is a DE or Snape is good. Allie: > Again - it's only because Dudley's such a little pig that that > happens at all. Has nothing to do with being a muggle. Magpie: I'm trying to keep this out of the "the twins are evil/no they aren't" area, but Arthur identifies what they do in that scene as Muggle-baiting because they intentionally played a magical trick on a Non-Magical person. And they claim to have done it because they wanted someone to test their products on--seems pretty straightforward Muggle-baiting to me, albeit the baiting of Muggles who were mean to their friend. It's a Magical Prank played on a Muggle. Also, the only reason anything happens is not that Dudley is "such a little pig." (That defense--and I'm sure this wasn't your intention--sounds disturbingly as if Muggle-baiting might be bad but "pigs" (overweight people) deserve to be humiliated, frightened or hurt.) What happens happens because the twins leave candy out hoping someone will pick it up and eat it--the whole thing goes according to their plan. The person who set the trap isn't absolved of responsibility because another person falls for it. For example, if someone intentionally left a cursed galleon on the floor of the Weasley house and one of them picked it up and died I would not dismiss it as, "Well, the only reason that happened was that they're such little money-grubbers." The main point Betsy is making is still that there are a limited number of Muggles we've ever seen zapped by hexes from wizards (something DEs are known for), and none of them, as far as we know, came from Snape. This does not mean those wizards were DEs themselves, or evil, or that Snape is the nicer person. She was just answering the idea that we'd seen Snape "acting like a DE" throughout the series. Allie: > (I know this thread was about Snape and being a death eater, but I > really don't believe that JKR is painting the twins as anything > other than Merry Pranksters, I know this has been the subject of > much debate.) Magpie: I would agree that JKR probably wants us to see the twins as merry pranksters (though I think she is aware of their darker side and doesn't always think their intentions are good), but since Betsy's post wasn't about that she can't be said to be arguing against it. She made a specific, limited point about Snape, which is that we've never seen him hex a Muggle, trick a Muggle, Transfigure a Muggle or even, as far as I can recall--talk about Muggles. So I think she was challenging the idea that he was "acting like a Death Eater (as opposed to just a jerk, for instance)?" all through canon, since it obviously didn't refer to his tormenting Muggles or Muggleborns. -m From dc.thorburn at ntlworld.com Thu Sep 29 13:08:23 2005 From: dc.thorburn at ntlworld.com (Derek Thorburn) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:08:23 +0100 Subject: Mcgonagal's approach to Harry in HBP Message-ID: <003101c5c4f6$e0754d70$3e781652@thorburn> No: HPFGUIDX 140911 I've notice through my reads of HBP what a different McGonagal we find. I must admit, I really liked the way she just accepted Harry as part of the discussion, not just in the hospital wing, but in her office. She really seems to be accepting him as an adult, not merely as a student. When they were discussing DD's being laid to rest at the school, we notice Harry saying to her, "Okay, assuming he's being laid to rest at Hogwarts, you shouldn't send the students home till they've had the chance to pay their respects" and, rather than retorting, "Potter, what I as headmistress decide is nothing to do with you - you are merely a student and I shall act as the Ministry and others see fit", she just goes ahead and asks for a mutual agreement and that seems to include Harry. It's almost as if she's accepting him as part of her entourage. I really hope we see a similar Mcgonagal in the final book. Derek From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 29 14:01:36 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:01:36 -0000 Subject: Harry's bias again WAS: Bullying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140912 > > > Ceridwen: > > > But, he did. One of the Weasleys tipped him off to the 'awful' > > > teacher before they got there. But he's pegged as a > suspected > > > former DE, someone loyal to the guy who killed Harry's parents, > > > before they even got to school or to class. Potioncat: Snape isn't associated with DEs until GoF. Even then, in the middle of GoF, Black says he'd never heard of Snape being accused of being one. By the first class, the readers and Harry have very little information about LV or DEs. We do have this quote from chapter 8: "Double Potions with the Slytherins," said Ron. "Snape's Head of Slytherin House. They say he always favors them--we'll be able to see if it's true. "Wish McGonagall favored us," said Harry. Then a page or so over: At the start-of-term banquet, Harry had gotten the idea that Professor Snape disliked him. By the end of the first Potions lesson, he knew he'd been wrong. Snape didn't dislke Harry--he "hated" him." So Harry goes into Potions thinking that Snape dislikes him for some reason. He has the pain in his scar and the forgotten dream in the back of his mind. (Or so we can surmise.) While there may be some wondering in his mind, I'm not so sure there was a real bias yet. We aren't told what Snape was thinking. Nor do we know what he knew/knows. At that time, did he know about Lily's magic or about the blood magic DD put in place? Could he have thinking that Potter could be a Dark Wizard? Could he have suspected there was a Bit Of Voldy in Harry's head? He did know that the Purebloods, or at least the DE-related ones, believed The Boy Who Lived was a Dark Wizard. He saw the celebrity that was being bestowed on Harry by the school. He had the memory of Famous James Potter. So, Snape was certainly biased. Whether he was testing Harry, punishing Harry or if he always started a class like that, I cannot say. Potioncat: Also responding to Alla's portions, but snipped to the bone. From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 16:08:44 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:08:44 -0000 Subject: Motivations for Joining DEs (Was: Bullying) In-Reply-To: <20050927223506.33686.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140913 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > I said that young people often join gangs (criminal ones) and cults > for all kinds of reasons - and they do. And we have Sirius' comment > that people thought Voldemort had the "right idea" at first, and that > even his family - who he has no incentive to excuse for anything - > backed away once they realized what he was really all about. I think I have a train of logic here, although it's likely to derail. Given Sirius's comments about his family and such, I think it's a good assumption that the *public* face of Voldemort's movement was precisely the blood issue. Regulus' family approved of his actions because they saw him as contributing to this noble cause, furthering ideas that were socially acceptable. Now, we the readers know that there was always a subcurrent to Voldemort's organization. HBP gives us information that puts the origins of that pretty far back. This subcurrent is the interest in Dark Magic, which leads to the immortality research, etc. What we don't know is how widely *this* was known. However, I keep thinking of Sluggy's comments about how wizards of 'caliber' have always been drawn to that kind of magic, and I wonder about even more past connections between pureblood pride and the Dark Arts. So we, of course, don't know what Young!Snape knew about the DEs. It seems safe to say that the blood thing was their public face, so we can assume that Young!Snape knew all about that and at minimum had no problems with it. And I think it's also supported that Young!Snape had 'issues' with the blood thing. He's one of the very few characters we've heard 'Mudblood' from (the others being Voldemort and Draco, and I think Bella?). We have the 'Half-Blood Prince', however one wants to read that. [I tend to agree with a correspondent, who said they found it "pathetic and cringeworthy and pitiable and contemptible and embarassing - and absolutely perfectly so." But that's a tangent.] This has no information to connect it to Present!Snape, but I think it belongs firmly in the mix for Young!Snape. It's a little too marked, put in places to be *noticed*, not to be relevant. What I wonder is whether there were associates of Voldemort in the school spreading the siren song of his Dark Magic skillz, as well. There's always the possibility of unrelated factors, but I'm not going to speculate about what I don't know I don't know, when I have shiny information in front of me. -Nora notes that evidence and construction thereof is why arguing to disregard the 'Harry filter' becomes tricky, fast From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Thu Sep 29 17:42:31 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:42:31 -0000 Subject: Motivations for Joining DEs - Pure blood and Propaganda In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140914 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > So we, of course, don't know what Young!Snape knew about the DEs. It > seems safe to say that the blood thing was their public face, so we can > assume that Young!Snape knew all about that and at minimum had no > problems with it. >And I think it's also supported that Young!Snape > had 'issues' with the blood thing. Elyse: I'm not so sure Young!Snape was all that comfortable with the pureblood issue. He was in Slytherin, so he must have been wary of revealing his parentage; I'm guessing there was a lot of pressure attached to it. Maybe he had already heard terms like Mudblood applied to other people. If,in an uncanny parallel to Harry's first meeting with Malfoy, 11 year old Snape had overheard a conversation that included things like "I really dont think they should let the other sort in, do you?" he would have realised that having a Muggle father was not exactly "something you bandy about" when youre in Slytherin. So if nobody knew about it, he could have pretended to be pureblood well into his fifth year, when he made that Mudblood comment. Nora wrote: We have the 'Half-Blood Prince', however one wants to > read that. [I tend to agree with a correspondent, who said they found > it "pathetic and cringeworthy and pitiable and contemptible and > embarassing - and absolutely perfectly so." But that's a tangent.] Elyse: It sounds like a typical nickname a lonely teenager would invent to make himself sound more impressive, even if it is a little cheesy. Nora: > This has no information to connect it to Present!Snape, but I think it > belongs firmly in the mix for Young!Snape. It's a little too marked, > put in places to be *noticed*, not to be relevant. Elyse: Oh youre absolutely right. If he wanted to hide the fact that he was a half-blood, writing it in the front of his potions book was really stupid thing to do. A sixteen year old trying to hide how pure his blood is in such a glaringly obvious place would have made a terribly incompetent spy dont you think? So I guess that information was *meant* to be found. It was supposed to be read by people, and then our Sevvie would proudly declare that he wasnt ashamed of his parentage. Somewhere between his fifth and sixth year, he had stopped passing himself off as pureblood. Now he was ready to show which side he supported on the blood issue and he wanted to be asked, wanted to be questioned about his parents. (Maybe by a certain green eyed, redheaded Gryffindor who was good at potions herself, and might want to borrow his potions book for the notes he had made in there?) ;-) Nora: What I wonder is > whether there were associates of Voldemort in the school spreading the > siren song of his Dark Magic skillz, as well. There's always the > possibility of unrelated factors, but I'm not going to speculate about > what I don't know I don't know, when I have shiny information in front > of me. > Elyse: I think that might have been the case. I remember in PS/SS where Dumbledore says to Mcgonagall "Weve had precious little to celebrate for 11 years" which would mean this sort of terror was going on while Snape and the Marauders were in school. So there must have been pro-Voldemort propaganda around. It strikes me as a little unlikely though that he would toot his own Dark Arts skills as an advertisement. We have been told that Snape was an oddball. There is no canon to say it was because of his fascination with the Dark Arts, but it doesnt seem to be a very normal thing among Hogwarts students. Even Draco Malfoy who was a child of Death Eaters has shown no particular interest in or inclination to invent the kind of curses young Snape was "upto his eyeballs" in. We do know,however that pureblood issues were used to get people over to the Dark side. So really, this blows my theory of Snape having had a change of heart in sixth year to smithereens. If he really was proud of his parentage, he would not have become a DE. Even if he was okay with exterminating Mudbloods, he must have known that people would find out he was half blood eventually. So assuming that Dark Arts usage wasnt one of the advertised perks for being a DE, and the inherent insecurity of being exposed as a half blood even if Snape agreed with the whole philosophy, the question remains, why did he become one? I am wondering how one goes about advertising for the Dark Arts without putting up a billboard in Knockturn Alley proclaiming: Are you proud of being a Pureblood? Do you enjoy Muggle Baiting? Lord Voldemort has the ideal job for you! Just send an owl to 1800-Dark Side* *Job description may include burning tattoos into forearm, being subjected to the Cruciatus curse on a regular basis and having family members sent on suicide missions in case of failure. Sorry, couldnt resist :-) Elyse From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Sep 29 18:16:46 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:16:46 -0000 Subject: The cave potion and soul pieces (Re: OFH! Snape again ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140915 > Valky: > I have read this point of view many times on the list. I think it > can be assumed, most of us concur that Dumbledore would have died > without Snapes help. But I don't see any one else asking why ESE! > Snape killed him again, in that case. I mean, seriously, why? One > death is enough for anyone (anyone with a whole soul anyway) > right? If the potion was doing the job, then why needs it be done > again? I think the potion was primed to kill Dumbledore the second > he ran out of fight, or stopped fighting for his life. Jen: I don't know Valky, most of us concurring on any issue about Snape seems highly improbable! I agree with your assessment, though. Using the ring incident as a guide, Dumbledore was again in mortal peril and expected to be patched up by Snape. Then it appeared Dumbledore gave up on getting Snape to his side in time, and chose to save Harry and Draco. Otherwise he wouldn't have given up his wand. Valky: > But then add it together. Voldemorts Deadly potion, bodgy looking > Avada Kedavra from Snape, fall from the tower = Only one death. > Which one is the odd one out? Which is real killer of a wizard > like Dumbledore? > It's got to be the potion, hasn't it? > > But then wouldn't that mean that Harry killed Dumbledore? Jen: I think the water would have to be the poison to make this stick. Dumbledore ordered Harry to give him the potion after he had drunk quite a few cups himself. Arguably Dumbledore killed himself if it was the potion. But the *water*, Harry gave him the water even knowing Voldemort had designed the trap to make the drinker crave water, and also after Dumbledore told him not to touch it. As to why Dumbledore didn't die immediately, it could be how little water Harry got in his mouth or Dumbledore took a general antidote prior to the trip, delaying the activation. He did know 'Riddle's style' and could have planned accordingly. I think when Dumbledore started drinking the potion and said it wouldn't kill him immediately, he didn't guess the reason why--that the potion itself served one purpose, and once that purpose was served, the water would actually finish the job fairly quickly (more on the potion below). DD didn't think to warn Harry again about the water. Valky: > Why would Dumbledore order Harry to kill him and then order Snape > to cover it up? The Horcrux soul piece was never destroyed by > Dumbledore. Oh yeah the ring was destroyed, but the soul piece.. > Snape saved Dumbledores life, and the ring was "....no > longer a Horcrux". But did Voldie die in the encounter? Dumbledore > never says he did, he never even implies it. And then he gets > Harry to kill him one night. How strange... Jen: I'm guessing you will have an answer for this: "However, a withered hand does not seems an unreasonable exchange for a seventh of Voldemort's soul." (chap. 23, p.503, Scholastic). > Valky: > OKay, just assuming that my explanation above is the correct one. Then how could Harry find this out? Heres my favourite theory. > 1. Snape will tell Harry. Woot! won't that be Bangy. > "You Killed Dumbledore!!" > "No I didn't you half-wit, moron. You did!" (more theories snipped here) 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). ************************************************* You mentioned how the soul piece in the ring might have attached itself to Dumbledore instead of dying, and that made me wonder again what happened to his hand. First to address the potion, though. I noticed a thought on another forum how Riddle was attempting an early form of possession with the two Muggle children in the cave and that's why they couldn't remember what happened. This made sense to me, Voldemort continually uses possession as a weapon and survival skill throughout the series. So I started wondering--could the potion in the cave have the ability to weaken and then possess the person drinking it? 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) This might also explain some of the things Dumbledore said that night. For instance: "I want to die! I want to die! Make it stop, make it stop...KILL ME!" These statements echo Harry at the DOM when possessed by Voldemort: "Let the pain stop, thought Harry. Let him kill us...End it, Dumbledore..." (chap. 36, p. 816) Now a potion being able to possess someone seems farfatched except we have a precendent for it with the liquid-like substance of memories found in a Pensieve and the memory in the diary possessing Ginny. To get to the point--could there be a possession protection on all the Horcruxes? Because the idea of the withered, blackened hand made me think of the power of evil being destroyed by Snape, and as it left the body and disintegrated, it would destory the portal through which it entered (wand hand). What do you think? Jen From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 18:36:03 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:36:03 -0000 Subject: Identifying Enemies/Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140916 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hickengruendler" wrote: > Hickengruendler: > > I have very mixed feelings bout the twins. On the one hand, I think > they can be highly entertaining, ... However, on the other hand, > there are things like the Dudley incident, in which ... are not > funny at all, IMO. > > > Finwitch: > > > > You know - Fred *dropped* it. ... He *does* have a valid > > point on it being Dudley's fault he ate it. ...edited.. > > > > 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, ... > Therefore whatever Dudley did, was calculated by Fred and George. > bboyminn: Yes, that joke was slightly malicious, but then all joke on another person are. In short, everyone one likes a joke except the person who is the butt of the joke. > Hickengruendler: > > However, I don't even think giving Dudley that candy was the worst > thing they did this day. The worst thing was *leaving*. ... But in > calmly leaving they made it obvious, that they didn't care if Dudley > had died, ... If Dudley had eaten the Toffee one minute later, he > might very well have died. > bboyminn: Let's not lose perspective, this was a joke product that Fred and George fully intended to sell to their friends and classmates. It is extremely unlikely that they would kill a pack of their friends for a few Galleons profit or even for a few laughs. Further, it is very likely that the Ton-Tongue Toffee was self-limiting. That is, much like the Canary Cream, the effect ended after a period of time and things reverted back to normal. Now, of course, part of the 'joke' was that Dudley and the Dursleys would have no way of knowing this, but none the less I am confident that the spell would have faded in a short time, and Dudley would have been normal again... or at least normal with respect to his tongue. > Hickengruendler: > > Until book 5, I thought it was simply that JKR and I have a > completely different sense of humour, and that JKR can laugh at such > black humour, ..., while I can't. bboyminn: Well, you are certainly entitled to your view on 'black humor'. But I still say that while the twins may be slightly malicious in their humor, the way all jokes are slightly malicious, I don't think they are vicious or heartless in their humor. Again, everybody enjoys a joke except the person who is the butt of the joke. So, again, these joke products are just that, joke products. Fred and George have tested the jokes on themselves, and it seems unreasonable to think they would sell lethal jokes to any kid who came along, or that they would perform a lethal joke on some unsuspecting soul. These jokes have to be safe, by some standard, and self-limiting. They can't count on someone always being around to perform complex counter-spells. Nor can they count on individuals like first-years to be able to know the correct counter-spell. Conclusion, there is no counter-spell, the joke is self-limiting, and in a short period of time the 'butt' (or tongue in this case) will revert to normal on his own. 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. > Hickengruendler: > > But now I'm not so sure about this anymore. The twins sort of > got their come-uppance for pushing Montague into the Vanishing > cabinet and not caring at all for what happened to him. It led to > the Death Eaters storming the castle, and in Fred and George's own > brother being disfigured forever. bboyminn: And there is more, take the Darkness Powder for example. The Twins have learned that there can certainly be greater unforseen consequences to their products. They learn a valuable life-lesson; they are growing up. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From lebeto033 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 18:26:28 2005 From: lebeto033 at yahoo.com (lebeto033) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:26:28 -0000 Subject: Harry's bias again WAS: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140917 > Finwitch: > > You know, I think you have a clear picture of this. In the first scene > - Harry's taking notes out of Snape's speech. In the book we get only > Harry's point of view -- he really does NOT see any reason why Snape > would pick on him. > > But - Snape did not see what Harry was writing and it may well have > appeared to him that Harry wasn't paying attention. (The Movie-version > makes this *obvious*, as it shows Draco's fascinated face in contrast > to Harry's concentrated writing. AND all of this more or less from > outsider-pov. Nice addition, IMO). > > However, as different people learn in different ways - that which may > appear as 'disturbance' of class might actually be a learning method > to the one doing it. (Harry's taking notes makes this obvious). A > kinetic learner requires movement in order to learn. And what disturbs > is also different. Some might actually find silence and stillness as > so disturbing that the demand prevents their learning... > > In addition, people are different in how easily they're disturbed (or > distracted). One consentrates fully to one task and just about nothing > can break it, another does 7 things at the same time (socialising, > learning etc.) It's a personality trait and appeals equally for work > and entertainment. lebeto: Ok, time to look for a little bit of Snape's bias without trying to be influenced by Harry's point of view. Harry's first potion lesson starts off with Snape singling Harry out as "'Our new --- celebrity'". As he does this Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle are laughing. After Snape's little speech, in which the book never tells of Harry taking notes instead he and Ron look at each other, he once again singles out Harry and asks him questions which Harry replies with a polite "'I don't know, sir'". Snape responds to this with "'Tut, tut --- fame clearly isn't everything'" and "'Thought you wouldn't open a book before coming'" which frankly I find a bit harsh for a 11 year old kid who didn't know about magic until about a week ago in his first class. Again Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle are laughing and if Snape hated disruptive behavior then perhaps he should have said something to his Slytherins. All of this one can say is just basically due to Snape acerbic personality but I think the clincher that Snape has a personal interest in bullying Harry is that when Neville melts Seamus' cauldron Snape turns to Harry and says "'You---Potter--- why didn't you tell him not to add the quills? Thought he'd make you look good if he got it wrong, did you?'" I can't find any way that Harry being biased against Snape would change the meaning of that statement. He yells at Harry for Neville's wrongdoing. I believe if anyone enters the first potions lesson with a bias it is most definitely Snape. After this lesson-- and if this behavior continues in other lessons-- I can't blame Harry for believing Snape is out to get him. lebeto From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 29 19:24:09 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 19:24:09 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories dups or originals? (was: OFH! Snape again) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140918 Jen wrote: > > Anyway, I'm with the people who have proposed Snape's Worst > > Memory was still hidden in the Pensieve, most likely the events > > of the GH incident--that's the one he needs to hide from LV if he > > truly changed sides. Saraquel: > My problem with the - put something in a pensieve and take it right > out of your head - theory, is that DD had Slughorn's tampered > memory when he sent Harry off to retrieve the missing bits. The > memory that Harry came back with was not just the missing bits, but > the whole scene from beginning to end, implying that there are two > copies of the memory, and the memory therefore stayed in Slughorn's > head after he had given the duff one to DD. > > ...it makes no sense for Snape to put stuff in the pensieve in the > occlumency scene in OotP, unless he was removing these memories > from his head. Is this then, an inconsistency from JKR? SSSusan: It may be an inconsistency, but then again, it may be that there are *options* for how to use the pensieve. Perhaps it's like when we're editing something in a word processing program or in e-mail. We highlight the text and then we have the *option* of COPY or CUT. Perhaps with Snape in the Occlumency lessons, he selected CUT, whereas Slughorn selected COPY. Oh, stop sniggering. It's a possibility, right? :-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Thu Sep 29 19:35:07 2005 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 20:35:07 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape and Neville/Potions and Herbology In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <433C41EB.7000201@btopenworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140919 dumbledore11214 wrote: > I think we are arguing past each other, Carol. I snipped the > examples, because I am not arguing that Potions is an applied > Herbology. What I AM arguing though is that they are have enough > similar aspects that the student who excels in Herbology CAN be > interested in Potions because some of the ingredients ARE plants ( > and it is really not important to me whether it be one half , one > quarter or one third) > > Someone who loves as you said caring for plants and uses for them > COULD be interested in preparing the potions. I really don't see the logic in this. It's like saying that because Neville likes taking care of Trevor, he should have enjoyed Snape's detention, taking frogs apart. :-) See what I mean? Taking care of plants has nothing to do with preparing them as potions ingredients. Irene From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 20:26:28 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 20:26:28 -0000 Subject: Identifying Enemies/Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140920 > bboyminn: > > Let's not lose perspective, this was a joke product that Fred and > George fully intended to sell to their friends and classmates. It is > extremely unlikely that they would kill a pack of their friends for a > few Galleons profit or even for a few laughs. > > Further, it is very likely that the Ton-Tongue Toffee was > self-limiting. Except that Dudley wasn't their classmate, was he? He did not live in a world where a broken bone can be mended by a few murmured words and most grievous wounds close themselves with an aid of some "foolish wand-waiving". He did not know what to expect from wizards and his experience had taught him to expect the very worst. After all the pig-tail he'd been awarded with hadn't been "self- limiting". In fact he had no way of knowing whether he'd survive or not. He could have died from the shock of it. He could have sustained a severe psychological trauma. Why, he probably *did* sustain a severe psychological trauma. Who knows what he remembered when a Dementor approached. a_svirn From leora at nycap.rr.com Thu Sep 29 19:56:41 2005 From: leora at nycap.rr.com (musicgal3001) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 19:56:41 -0000 Subject: Identifying Enemies/Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140921 I am sure that Fred and George did not mean to kill anyone. The whole idea of Fred and George in these books are that they are almost the comic relief. Maybe, on a deeper level, they will create something that can be used by the Order to ensure some sort of victory. If any twins should be looked at, it should be the Patil twins. During the Civil War, there is a story about two brothers-twins if I recall correctly-who fought against each other. One on the south, the other on the north. Now, it's fairly obvious that Parvati Patil, being in Gryffindor, will fight with the Order or something like that. But her sister is in Ravenclaw, which is known for it's intelligence. Maybe, Padma Patil is more important than one may think. Musicgal. From anurim at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 19:17:55 2005 From: anurim at yahoo.com (Mira) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:17:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: UV = DDM? In-Reply-To: <127.659c76c3.306cb319@aol.com> Message-ID: <20050929191755.27059.qmail@web32605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140922 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. > 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. 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. > 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. 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. > 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). 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. Mira ______________________________________________________ Yahoo! for Good Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From leora at nycap.rr.com Thu Sep 29 20:06:49 2005 From: leora at nycap.rr.com (musicgal3001) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 20:06:49 -0000 Subject: Mcgonagal's approach to Harry in HBP In-Reply-To: <003101c5c4f6$e0754d70$3e781652@thorburn> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140923 Derek: I really hope we see a similar > Mcgonagal in the final book. I honestly believe that we will have to see a similar McGonagall in Harry Potter and the great conclusion. I mean, Harry will most likely take over the Order of the Phoenix-or if not, will be a very important player in the Order. People realize that Harry will be the one to face off Voldemort, even if no one heard the prophecy. I believe that McGonnagall realizes that if she attempts to keep Harry in school, or even to treat Harry as less than a VIP in the coming battle, she will lose all contact with him. And that's the last thing the light needs to do at this point. They need to band together, and McGonagall is smart enough to realize that means cooperating with Harry and treating him as he is: a dedicated soldier. Another thing is that I think he will need to cooperate with her, too. Harry will have to let other people help him with this final battle if he has any chance of winning it. Especially if a Horcrux is in Hogwarts, which it very well could be. I believe that this idea of cooperation includes other things except for Hogwarts. I think Harry will have to cooperate with the Ministry in order to get over necessary steps. That's my two cents Musicgal. From April at cyberlinc.net Thu Sep 29 20:16:52 2005 From: April at cyberlinc.net (April Johnson) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:16:52 -0400 Subject: Damage to Dudley? References: Message-ID: <039101c5c532$e7300dd0$1502a8c0@april> No: HPFGUIDX 140924 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. April From kjones at telus.net Thu Sep 29 20:44:57 2005 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:44:57 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Motivations for Joining DEs (Was: Bullying) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <433C5249.5060202@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 140925 nrenka wrote: > Given Sirius's comments about his family and such, I think it's a good > assumption that the *public* face of Voldemort's movement was precisely > the blood issue. Regulus' family approved of his actions because they > saw him as contributing to this noble cause, furthering ideas that were > socially acceptable. snip > So we, of course, don't know what Young!Snape knew about the DEs. It > seems safe to say that the blood thing was their public face, so we can > assume that Young!Snape knew all about that and at minimum had no > problems with it. And I think it's also supported that Young!Snape > had 'issues' with the blood thing. He's one of the very few characters > we've heard 'Mudblood' from (the others being Voldemort and Draco, and > I think Bella?). We have the 'Half-Blood Prince', however one wants to > read that. [I tend to agree with a correspondent, who said they found > it "pathetic and cringeworthy and pitiable and contemptible and > embarassing - and absolutely perfectly so." But that's a tangent.] KJ writes: Suppose for just a moment that the Prince family, Purebloods, objected to the marriage of Snape's mother to a Muggle. Perhaps the name "Half-blood Prince" was a name of derision in the Prince household. The description and similarities between Snape and Malfoy would suggest that Snape may have been raised in a Pureblood household. The focus that Snape had on the Dark Arts would not likely be held in a more Muggle household. Snape, homely, skinny, little fellow that he was, undoubtedly had to go to some great lengths to satisfy his family members, especially if he was taken to their home to be raised. One might also suspect that Snape may have been forced into the DEs by his Prince family as a sign of manhood or solidarity. This theory would answer several questions about his teaching technique, his low self-esteem, his remorse, and even the snide half-blood Prince in his book. KJ From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 20:43:40 2005 From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 20:43:40 -0000 Subject: Damage to Dudley? In-Reply-To: <039101c5c532$e7300dd0$1502a8c0@april> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140926 > Kathryn wrote: > What if the Dursleys by some chance they gave Dudley everything so > to prevent his latent magical ability? > > April wrote: > But if they did that for Dudley, why did they deprive Harry of everything to squash the magic out of him? . . . . Doesn't make sense to treat them differently to get the same effect. hpfan_mom now: Also, in the interview she gave at the Edinburgh Book Festival, JKR was asked, "Is there more to Dudley than meets the eye?" Her reply: "No. [Laughter]. What you see is what you get. I am happy to say that he is definitely a character without much back story. He is just Dudley. The next book, Half Blood Prince, is the least that you see of the Dursleys. You see them quite briefly. You see them a bit more in the final book, but you don't get a lot of Dudley in book six?very few lines. I am sorry if there are Dudley fans out there, but I think you need to look at your priorities if it is Dudley that you are looking forward to. [Laughter]." 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? hpfan_mom From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 21:10:18 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 21:10:18 -0000 Subject: Motivations for Joining DEs - Pure blood and Propaganda In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140927 > Elyse: I'm not so sure Young!Snape was all that comfortable with the > pureblood issue. > He was in Slytherin, so he must have been wary of revealing his > parentage; I'm guessing there was a lot of pressure attached to it. > Maybe he had already heard terms like Mudblood applied to other > people. > If,in an uncanny parallel to Harry's first meeting with Malfoy, > 11 year old Snape had overheard a conversation that included things > like > "I really dont think they should let the other sort in, do you?" > he would have realised that having a Muggle father was not > exactly "something you bandy about" when youre in Slytherin. > So if nobody knew about it, he could have pretended to be pureblood > well into his fifth year, when he made that Mudblood comment. zgirnius: I have no opinion as to young Snape's views on the blood purity issue. However, I am not so sure that he posed as a pureblood at school. I am not even sure that he *could* have, had he wanted to. The problem is that his Muggle parent is his father, making him a Snape, not a Prince. The Wizarding World would seem to be small enough that pureblood types in Slytherin for whom this was an important issue would know there were no pureblood Wizarding Snapes. I'm not so sure we can even conclude that Sorting of half-bloods into Slytherin is unusual. From the evidence we have, it does not seem that Slytherin House has far fewer students than any other house (rather, the Houses would seem to be of approximately equal size). We know plenty of purebloods get Sorted into other houses. (James Potter, Sirius Black, the entire Weasley clan, Neville Longbottom, just to list some Gryffindors). Yet, on the other hand, we are to believe that purebloods are a vanishing breed, that families which insist on maintaining blood purity are all intermarrying with their close relatives, which may eventually result in lots of "Gaunts". If almost all Slytherins are purebloods, then purebloods must make up well over 1/4 of the total Wizarding population, and probably more than 1/2. > Elyse: > It strikes me as a little unlikely though that he would toot his own > Dark Arts skills as an advertisement. > We have been told that Snape was an oddball. > There is no canon to say it was because of his fascination with the > Dark Arts, but it doesnt seem to be a very normal thing among > Hogwarts students. Even Draco Malfoy who was a child of Death Eaters > has shown no particular interest in or inclination to invent the > kind of curses young Snape was "upto his eyeballs" in. zgirnius: Assuming that the invention of novel Dark spells takes brains, hard work, and magical talent, it would be an unusual ("oddball") interest in any group of young people. It is too much like "real work". This does not mean, however, that such an interest might not be appreciated by such young people once they see the useful results. I think the "Slytherin gang" knew Snape was not a pureblood, and they did think he was an oddball, but "Levicorpus" for example, was just a *cool* spell and they could see the use of someone who came up with that sort of stuff. Even if joining Snape in trying to develop such spells held no attractions for them. From Snape's POV, being accepted to some extent into the "gang" may have provided some protection. Hermione Granger comes to mind as another example of this. Harry and Ron appreciate her in part for her abilities in library research and magic. This does not inspire them to start reading moldy old books themselves, or to spend hours practicing advanced magic. But it is definitely a useful thing about Hermione (not to mention all the honework help...) (I do think Hermione clearly mean more to Harry and Ron than just that, there are emotional ties, true friendship, romantic love, etc. I am just saying that this one thing among many Hermione has to offer Ron and Harry was what may have made Snape acceptable in Slytherin to some extent). Elyse: > We do know, however, that pureblood issues were used to get people > over to the Dark side. So really, this blows my theory of Snape > having had a change of heart in sixth year to smithereens. > If he really was proud of his parentage, he would not have become a > DE. Even if he was okay with exterminating Mudbloods, he must have > known that people would find out he was half blood eventually. zgirnius: Elsewhere in this thread people have pointed out the relatively "respectable" face which Voldemort may have put on his goals. I would imagine this would *not* include advocating the killing of Mudbloods or Muggles. Rather, I imagine it would express itself as a respect for traditional values. Stop admitting Muggle- borns into Hogwarts. Reduce the influence of the Muggle world in Wizarding society and the MoM, in favor of restoring the influence of purebloods, the "true guardians of ancient Wizarding traditions". (Yes, as a side effect this would tend to mean marginalizing and denying employment to Muggle-borns...a sad necessity, a temporary one, and one that need not be dwelled on...) Discourage intermarriage of wizards/witches and Muggles. (If Snape's parents' marriage was not a happy one, he might easily see the "logic" of this one...) Another factor I can hypothetically see having an influence in Snape's decision is economic. He's a talented wizard, outstandingly so in Potions and Dark Arts/DADA. But what is his financial situation as he reaches adulthood? Does he have a viable income/job opportunities in the Wizarding World? We hear a lot about James and Sirius being such excellent students, but not about Snape despite the obvious evidence of ability in adult Snape. Maybe Snape did not have the OWLs in some of his less-favored subjects due to poor work habits/attitude/whatever. He may have needed the influence of more influential Slytherin patrons to get his chance (like, say, Lucius Malfoy...) and could have joined to cement such connections. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Sep 29 21:10:50 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 21:10:50 -0000 Subject: Draco's symptoms in HBP---my own theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140928 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Caius Marcius" wrote: > > Or mayhap we should just Occam-Razor it: DM was under an unprecedented level of stress that he was not prepared to deal with, and reacted the same way that most ill-prepared individuals react, i.e., very poorly. Pippin: Or maybe Draco's symptoms resemble Lupin's because they share a condition -- not lycanthropy but a burdensome allegiance to Lord Voldemort. Pippin From parisfan_ca at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 21:18:34 2005 From: parisfan_ca at yahoo.com (laurie goudge) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:18:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Damage to Dudley? In-Reply-To: <039101c5c532$e7300dd0$1502a8c0@april> Message-ID: <20050929211834.19825.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140929 > 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. > To me that doesn't track. I mean Petunia seems to despise all things magical and I am assuming it'd also be applicical to her son if he showed any sort of magical ablitity and not just the ill treatment of her own nephew. Being someone intrested in pshycology I'd assume the damage would be the fact that Dudley is a spoiled child and has been given all that he desires and not learning how to work for what he wants. laurie __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 21:48:02 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 21:48:02 -0000 Subject: The Real Snape (was:Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140930 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > It will be fascinating to see how Snape looks once book 7 is > > done. (If his hair is described as "silky" in the last chapter, > > I will die laughing. ) > >>Lupinlore: > And I will vomit all over the book at such incredibly poor writing > if such does indeed turn out to be the case. > Betsy Hp: Oh, I agree. The "silky hair" thing was tongue-in-cheek on my part. It's a flashing neon sign that you're most likely entering a particularly bad Snape-centric fanfic if he's described as having silky hair. (Silk underwear, sheets, wall hangings, etc. are often not far behind.) > >>Lupinlore: > Now, we may well see more revelations, I will be shocked if we > don't. But Snape NOT a bully to Harry and the other kids? Betsy Hp: Didn't we get that in HBP? IIRC, Snape doesn't bully any of the students at all. I believe Harry's only class problem with Snape is a difference of opinion on the best way to handle a dementor. > >>Lupinlore: > Snape NOT a reprehensible and twisted product of fascination with > the Dark Arts? Betsy Hp: Okay, this is such a good example of the power of rumor. Has Snape ever shown a fascination with the Dark Arts? Does anything about the two DADA classes we see him in suggest that he's "addicted" to the Dark Arts? Sure, Sirius was all, "he liked the Dark Arts so we *had* to beat him up," but isn't that *all* we have? Honestly, Snape's mastery at *defense* against the Dark Arts, and his unparalled knowledge of *healing* dark curses suggest that any perception of his "fascination" with the Dark Arts may be twisted in and of itself. > >>Lupinlore: > Snape NOT a horrible, sadistic, and poor teacher? Betsy Hp: This goes under the HBP heading, I think. Snape is proven to be an excellent Potion's teacher. (I'm still waiting for a canon example of Snape behaving not just badly but sadistically. ) > >>Lupinlore: > Snape NOT someone who faces very stiff punishment for his > inexcusable actions throughout the entire series? In short, Snape > NOT what he has been portrayed as in every word and scene ever > written about him? > Excuse me, but I think I'm going to die of laughter right now :). Betsy Hp: Wait! You didn't mention tragic hero, tirelessly working to keep the young champion safe, his unsung sacrifice the only thing standing between victory and utter doom. Oh dear, we *are* reading different books, aren't we. Betsy Hp From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 21:55:32 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 21:55:32 -0000 Subject: The cave potion and soul pieces In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140931 Jen wrote: > So I started wondering--could the potion in the cave have the > ability to weaken and then possess the person drinking it? Saraquel: I love this idea Jen - I really want to be convinced of this one as it explains so many things. I don't have time for a long post, so just a few immediate reactions. plus: 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 wrote: > This might also explain some of the things Dumbledore said that > night. For instance: "I want to die! I want to die! Make it stop, > make it stop...KILL ME!" These statements echo Harry at the DOM when > possessed by Voldemort: Saraquel: Yes this fits very nicely. It clears up any problems about someone finding out about the cave, whose potion was it etc etc. The fake locket was set by Voldemort for the second person? or perhaps for the individual who drank the potion - no time to think about that at the moment. It is now essential for Snape to contact Harry and get the truth to him - I think this puts Snape firmly in DDs camp. Will Harry believe him? Minus 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. What is in the lake 'water' that seems to revive DD. If he continues to be fighting possession by the HSP he does pretty darn well. When it possessed Harry in the MoM he was completely debilitated by it, as was DD at first. But DD, seems to be acting himself for the remainder of his life. So what is enabling him to be doing that? Gotta go Saraquel From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 22:06:52 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:06:52 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories dups or originals? (was: OFH! Snape again) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140932 > SSSusan: > It may be an inconsistency, but then again, it may be that there are > *options* for how to use the pensieve. Perhaps it's like when we're > editing something in a word processing program or in e-mail. We > highlight the text and then we have the *option* of COPY or CUT. > Perhaps with Snape in the Occlumency lessons, he selected CUT, > whereas Slughorn selected COPY. > > Oh, stop sniggering. It's a possibility, right? :-) > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Saraquel: Sounds pretty pastey to me :-) Apologies to list elves for one liner! Saraquel From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 22:12:11 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:12:11 -0000 Subject: Snape's first lesson (Was: Harry's bias again) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140933 Potioncat wrote: > Snape isn't associated with DEs until GoF. Even then, in the middle of GoF, Black says he'd never heard of Snape being accused of being one. By the first class, the readers and Harry have very little information about LV or DEs. > So Harry goes into Potions thinking that Snape dislikes him for some reason. He has the pain in his scar and the forgotten dream in the back of his mind. > We aren't told what Snape was thinking. Nor do we know what he knew/knows. At that time, did he know about Lily's magic or about the blood magic DD put in place? Could he have thinking that Potter could be a Dark Wizard? Could he have suspected there was a Bit Of Voldy in Harry's head? > He did know that the Purebloods, or at least the DE-related ones, believed The Boy Who Lived was a Dark Wizard. He saw the celebrity that was being bestowed on Harry by the school. He had the memory of Famous James Potter. > So, Snape was certainly biased. Whether he was testing Harry, punishing Harry or if he always started a class like that, I cannot say. Carol responds: I can't see how questioning Harry about bezoars, asphodel and wormwood, etc., can in any way be construed as "punishment." It does, however, serve several purposes, whether or not Snape intended it to do so. First, it establishes that Harry cannot have deliberately vaporized Voldemort at age fifteen months, since he seems to have no knowledge at all of magic. It consequently diminishes the likelihood that he's a Dark Wizard in the making (as Draco and Lucius seem to have half-suspected given Draco's initial overtures to Harry). I think that Snape is still not entirely satisfied on this point and that his suspicions are again aroused when he discovers that Harry speaks Parseltongue in CoS, but the questions are (IMO) intended to test the waters. Once Snape discovers that "our new celebrity" really doesn't deserve his celebrity status, having clearly done nothing intentional to earn it, he does sneer at Harry ("Thought you wouldn't open a book"), but he also takes care to provide him (and the entire class) with the answers to his questions and then asks why they're not all taking notes. That question in itself indicates that he has just conveyed some very important information (as we discover in HBP when a bezoar saves Ron's life). Perhaps, as Potioncat suggests, he always opens the first lesson with these questions. Or perhaps he intended to make the first lesson memorable to Harry in particular anticipating that he might just have a need for a bezoar (or for the Draught of Living Death). It's impossible to say, but if he's DD'sMan, I suspect the latter. At any rate, he doesn't punish Harry for his ignorance. He only deducts a single house point for Harry's "cheek" in suggesting that Snape call on Hermione. That response seems to establish in Snape's mind that Harry resembles his father in more than appearance, an impression reinforced in SS/PS by Harry's sneaking around at night and in CoS by his disrupting the class to enable Hermione to steal supplies. (Harry knows that Snape suspects him in both instances, not without grounds.) It's possible that Snape is trying from the outset to keep Harry from being treated as "a pampered little prince," fearing that such treatment will go to his head and turn him into a second James (and I for one think it's a good thing for Harry and the WW at large that Harry doesn't share James's cockiness.) It's also possible that Snape wants to establish Harry's genuine ignorance and apparent mediocrity in front of the Slytherins (who will report it to their parents, some of whom are DEs) so that they will underestimate Harry's importance and abilities. Regardless of his intentions, the Slytherins certainly do look down their noses at the Boy Who Lived at this point: Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle are "shaking with laughter" at Harry's responses (SS Am. ed. 137.) BTW, the narrator indirectly reinforces Harry's ignorance by having him think that he can find out what a bezoar is by looking in "1,000 Magical Herbs and Fungi," an unlikely place to find information on stones that form in the stomachs of goats. Having asked some questions, provided the answers (at least one of which will later prove crucial in HBP), and established that Harry knows no more about Potions than a Muggle, Snape shifts his focus from Harry and puts the class to work on a simple potion. He praises Draco's work (partly favoritism, partly reinforcement for doing it right), then has to deal with Neville's incompetence--which is *not* IMO caused by fear of Snape, who has not yet paid him any attention, but by his own lack of self-confidence (his family regards him as an almost-Squib and he shares their view--see CoS). Harry perceives this incident as further discrimination against Gryffindor, but it's more likely intolerance for "dunderheads." The point that Harry loses for Gryffindor for not helping Neville is just Snape's nastiness, but the interrogation at the beginning of the class is probably something entirely different. At the time of this lesson, Snape knows about the first part of the Prophecy (although the reader doesn't). He almost certainly knows that Voldemort was not killed at Godric's Hollow and that he will come back. (He may already suspect Quirrell's connection with LV.) He's curious about Harry (I think does a bit of long-distance Legilimency when he first sees him in the Great Hall) and he tests him out at the first opportunity. He comes away from that encounter with what seems to be a rather contemptuous view of the Boy Who Lived, which Harry, having seen Percy's remarks about Snape favoring the Slytherins validated (and perhaps misled by the scar incident) interprets as hate. As Potioncat says, we don't know Snape's thoughts, but we do know that in SS/PS at least he's actively opposed to Quirrell and questions Quirrell's loyalties, not to mention that he saves Harry's life and tries to do so again by refereeing a later Quidditch match. He tries throughout the whole book to keep Harry and friends away from the third-floor corridor, which he knows from his own painful experience is very dangerous (especially to someone with at little magical experience and expertise as eleven-year-old Harry). We also know that the narrator is setting us up from the scar incident onward to think that Snape is the villain of Book 1. It may be that for some readers, the suspicion carries on into later books--and possibly that's what JKR wants us to think. >From the standpoint of SS/PS alone, Snape's behavior in the first lesson is a red herring, intended like the pain in the scar to make the reader (and Harry) distrust Snape. From the standpoint of the series, the encounter probably has greater significance. Almost certainly it's Snape's attempt to figure out who and what Harry is, both in terms of abilities and attitude. It may be Snape's attempt to impart valuable knowledge to Harry, which Harry fails to realize or acknowledge. It may also be a successful attempt to get the Slytherins to underestimate Harry and to create an impression of his own contempt for the Boy Who Lived in anticipation of his double agent role if and when LV returns. The antagonism and contempt may be real, but IMO Snape is exaggerating them at this point for his own reasons. By the end of the lesson, the illusion of enmity has been established. Harry believes that Snape hates him. Unfortunately for both characters (assuming that Snape is loyal to Dumbledore), this perceived enmity becomes more real as each behaves in ways that reinforce the initial impression. Long before HBP, Snape is convinced that Harry is arrogant, dishonest, and mediocre; Harry is convinced that Snape is not just unfair and unpleasant but evil. But in the first Potions lesson, all this is in the future. IMO, Snape knows or suspects that Harry is "the One with the Power to destroy the Dark Lord" and is trying to sound him out without revealing to the Slytherins in the class--or to Harry himself--that he and Harry are on the same side. What this lesson is not, I'm almost certain, is pointless bullying or mere resentment of James projected onto Harry. It serves Snape's purpose (to discover the extent of Harry's knowledge), but like everything else in the Potterverse, it has unintended consequences that extend at least six years into the future. I expect to see further consequences, perhaps something related to the Draught of Living Death (not to mention the culmination or resolution of their mutual antagonism), in Book 7. Carol From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 22:12:18 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:12:18 -0000 Subject: The Real Snape (was:Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140934 > Betsy Hp: > Okay, this is such a good example of the power of rumor. Has Snape > ever shown a fascination with the Dark Arts? Does anything about > the two DADA classes we see him in suggest that he's "addicted" to > the Dark Arts? Alla: Yep, I think inventing "Sectusemptra" definitely shows fascination with Dark Arts. And I think that this is not the only definitely dark curse which Snape invented. No canon of course, but since we know that Snape was in the habit of inventing curses, I think it is reasonable to speculate that he came up with some interesting ones. Betsy Hp: Sure, Sirius was all, "he liked the Dark Arts so we > *had* to beat him up," but isn't that *all* we have? Honestly, > Snape's mastery at *defense* against the Dark Arts, and his > unparalled knowledge of *healing* dark curses suggest that any > perception of his "fascination" with the Dark Arts may be twisted in > and of itself. Alla: No, I don't think that it is twisted at all. Again, we KNOW for a fact that Snape invented at least ONE curse which hurts very badly. which can actually kill. Hm, are we sure that there was only one? > > >>Lupinlore: > > Snape NOT a horrible, sadistic, and poor teacher? > > Betsy Hp: > This goes under the HBP heading, I think. Snape is proven to be an > excellent Potion's teacher. (I'm still waiting for a canon example > of Snape behaving not just badly but sadistically. ) Alla: Hm, THAT I am interested in, actually. Snape is PROVEN to be an Excellent Potion teacher? Where? Are you talking about the students who passed the class,which JKR is not sure contains 40 or 600 students? Or are you talking about something different? Oh, and if you are serious about giving you examples of Snape's sadistic behaviour again, let me know, I will send you many links with a lot of quoting in it. Am not at home, so cannot include them here :-) JMO, Alla. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 22:14:07 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:14:07 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140935 > Finwitch: > > Reassuring James' wasn't ALL bad (telling all the good sides, that is) > was important too - just as important as the stopping part. It did > ease Harry about his father. Badmouthing Snape in this incident would > have made matters worse. I bet Sirius and Lupin could identify the > memory-- zgirnius: Yes, I am sure they could. Harry's description would have included several specifics that would bring it to mind, I imagine. Lily's involvement probably distinguishes it from other possible incidents, and the timing-during OWL exams. It still seems to me that Sirius does not have preserving what little positive feelings for Snape Harry may have as a priority. But I will agree it is a plausible reason for Lupin not to bring up past bad behavior by young Snape. (Just contrast Sirius and Lupin's reactions to learning Snape has refused to continue teaching Occlumency. Both are concerned, but Sirius threatens to act in a manner that can only add fuel to the fire. Not to say I would have expected Sirius to react differently...) > Finwitch: > > That incident happened before Sirius got worried about Harry's > Occlumency-lessons. That was when Snape comes up and tells Harry > (after questioning Sirius' presence in Sirius' own house in a matter > concerning his godson) that Dumbledore told him to teach Occlumency. > You'll notice that Sirius questions this. "Why you?" - I think it's > not merely about Snape teaching, but also Snape informing. Sirius is > to take Snape's word on this...? And I bet Sirius had a good guess on > what might happen to his poor godson in these lessons... I'd say > Sirius demanded Phineas to tell Dumbledore to pay a visit and had a > heated discussion with Dumbledore about this special lesson-plan. > > As I saw it, Sirius was mainly upset because these Order-members were > stepping over his status as Harry's godfather and appointed guardian. > You know, it's bad enough with Crouch' having put him into Azkaban > where he spent 12 years with Dementors - without so much as a trial - > for something he didn't do - meaning he hasn't been able to do his > duty as Godfather. Then, Dumbledore &al. know he's innocent, even if > WW on the whole doesn't - and he *did* get to do godfathering for a > year - I think he felt very much betrayed when people who ought to > know he's innocent ignore his godfatherhood and even act to prevent > him acting like one. That's very deep insult to him. zgirnius: Well, I think it did contribute to Harry's bad feelings about Occlumency with Snape, and Sirius woudl understand this. Not that5 it is reasonable to expect him to have reacted in any other way, I am not saying I *blame* Sirius. As you point out above, Sirius was being rather shabbily treated in regards to his claims as Harry's godfather. I also find his hatred of Snape at this juncture to be entirely understandable as well based on Snape's role in the Shack. > Finwitch: > > Well, that he flat out refused to listen is that to me. You know, > Lupin used Legilimency to get the truth out of Sirius first thing. > (it's pretty obvious from the description now that we know about > them.) We know (per OOP) that Snape can do that, too. He keeps doing > that to Harry. Why didn't he do it to Sirius as well? He flat out > refuses to listen-- to even consider the possibility that Sirius might > be innocent - just because of a teenage grudge. zgirnius: Lupin is an old friend of Sirius', and out of this old friendship he has already helped Sirius to the extent that he has not revealed to anyone that Sirius is an Animagus. Further, Lupin has just learned that, whatever his other crimes might be, Sirius is innocent of the murder of Peter Pettigrew. (Since said Peter Pettigrew is, according to the Marauders' Map, wandering the Hogwarts grounds...) Snape has neither of these advantages. His actions are not optimally fair or considered or just, but they are reasonable IMO. Finwitch: > And IMO Snape's been acting like a teenager troughout all the books. > Harry's entitled to that because he IS one. Snape ought to have grown > out of it by now. He has spent several years surrounded by > Dumbledore's trust - whereas Sirius spent 12 years alone with > Dementors, which does tend to cause insanity. (Obsession in Sirius' > case. Lucky for him, that got him out) zgirnius: Overall I would tend to agree with your argument that Sirius has more reason to behave like a teenager than Snape does. Why Snape has not grown out of it is IMO an interesting question, and I enjoy reading everyone's speculations and thoughts here about it. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 22:39:46 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:39:46 -0000 Subject: Identifying Enemies/Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140936 > >>Hickengruendler: > > I have very mixed feelings bout the twins. On the one hand, I > > think they can be highly entertaining, ... However, on the other > > hand, there are things like the Dudley incident, in which ... > > are not funny at all, IMO. > >>bboyminn: > Yes, that joke was slightly malicious, but then all joke on another > person are. In short, everyone one likes a joke except the person > who is the butt of the joke. Betsy Hp: Which is why practical jokers walk a very thin line between being funny and being bullies. The twins seem to cross that line and everyone's so busy laughing they don't quite recognize the cruelty of the humor. (And why, like Hickengruendler I'm not sure how to take the twins. Are they merely funny or is there something darker lurking back there?) > >>Hickengruendler: > > However, I don't even think giving Dudley that candy was the > > worst thing they did this day. The worst thing was > > *leaving*. > > > >>bboyminn: > Let's not lose perspective, this was a joke product that Fred and > George fully intended to sell to their friends and classmates. It > is extremely unlikely that they would kill a pack of their friends > for a few Galleons profit or even for a few laughs. > Further, it is very likely that the Ton-Tongue Toffee was > self-limiting. That is, much like the Canary Cream, the effect > ended after a period of time and things reverted back to normal. Betsy Hp: Was it? Fred tells Harry, "...we've been looking for someone to test them on all summer..." (GoF scholastic hardback p.51) I *hope* Fred is exaggerating here. Surely he and George wouldn't be so colossally stupid as to use an untested product on someone with such a weak immune system (Dudley being a non-magically protected Muggle). But if Fred's telling the truth it means they used something not yet ready to sell to their friends and classmates. As to it being self-limiting, George asks his father, "How big did his tongue get?" (ibid p.53) Which suggests the joke was that the growth would go on for a while. And when Arthur tells the boys he had to shrink Dudley's tongue himself, no one says, oh, it would have gone back to normal on its own. Really, this is part of the reason I'm unclear on how the twins are supposed to be seen. 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, beating a furry animal to death is only a sign of high spirits, etc.) and Harry seems to buy those assumptions himself. So am I being a wet-blanket when I point out that they seem to have an awful lot of injuries and near death experiences trailing behind their "jokes"? > >>bboyminn: > > But I still say that while the twins may be slightly malicious in > their humor, the way all jokes are slightly malicious, I don't > think they are vicious or heartless in their humor. Again, > everybody enjoys a joke except the person who is the butt of the > joke. Betsy Hp: All jokes are not malicious. Not even practical ones. And the twins aren't always joking when they attack someone. (They weren't laughing when they stuffed Montague into a broken magical device that they knew nothing about. And I doubt they were laughing when Montague was finally able to summon enough wild-magic to get himself out, barely alive.) > >>bboyminn: > So, again, these joke products are just that, joke products. Fred > and George have tested the jokes on themselves... Betsy Hp: Or on the first gullible first year or worthless Muggle they can find. > >>bboyminn: > ...and it seems unreasonable to think they would sell lethal jokes > to any kid who came along, or that they would perform a lethal > joke on some unsuspecting soul. > Betsy Hp: Yeah, see that's what you'd assume. And yet, I'm not quite sure Fred and George don't think quite the same way you or I would. (They smuggle illegal drugs into Hogwarts. What does that say?) > >>bboyminn: > 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. Betsy Hp: "[Mr. Weasley] was looking angrier than Harry had ever seen him." (ibid p.52) He then goes on to "shout" "roar" and "rage". I'm not sure he's really treating this like a joke. Especially since Arthur is generally a fairly mild-mannered man. > >>bboyminn: > He doesn't seem worried. > Betsy Hp: He doesn't seem worried about Dudley's physical safety. (Of course, Arthur has so little knowledge of Muggles in general he may not realize that the usual Muggle reaction to a greatly swollen tongue is death.) But Arthur *does* seem worried about what his sons' behavior means. There's an underlying ugliness there that Arthur notes, Harry misses, and Molly rolls right over. > >>Hickengruendler: > > > > The twins sort of got their come-uppance for pushing Montague > > into the Vanishing cabinet and not caring at all for what > > happened to him. It led to the Death Eaters storming the castle, > > and in Fred and George's own brother being disfigured forever. > >>bboyminn: > And there is more, take the Darkness Powder for example. The Twins > have learned that there can certainly be greater unforseen > consequences to their products. They learn a valuable life-lesson; > they are growing up. Betsy Hp: Do the twins even realize that their actions and their products led to Death Eaters in Hogwarts? We haven't seen that realization on page. Ron has said he's going to talk to them, but that particular confrontation hasn't happened yet. And I'm not certain Fred or George will listen to anything Ron has to say to them. So I think you're jumping the gun in saying they've learned anything or have grown in anyway. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 22:46:18 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:46:18 -0000 Subject: Snape's first lesson (Was: Harry's bias again) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140937 > Carol responds: > I can't see how questioning Harry about bezoars, asphodel and > wormwood, etc., can in any way be construed as "punishment." Alla: Because as we debated many months ago, TO ME it is highly unlikely that first years are given any homework, since muggle borns have very little idea what magic is in general and it is not very wise (IMO of course) to give them homework, before they ever met a teacher and gotten any instructions on how to proceed as such. Therefore asking Harry something which Snape KNOWS that he does not know is at very least unfair and IMO can be constituted as singling out and bullying. Oh, the fact that Hermione knows it does not convince me that homework was given of course ( Just wanted to say to preface rebuttal) Hermione reads everything all the time. Carol: It does, > however, serve several purposes, whether or not Snape intended it to > do so. First, it establishes that Harry cannot have deliberately > vaporized Voldemort at age fifteen months, since he seems to have no > knowledge at all of magic. It consequently diminishes the likelihood > that he's a Dark Wizard in the making (as Draco and Lucius seem to > have half-suspected given Draco's initial overtures to Harry). Alla: Hmmm, the thing is that Snape can figure out that Harry is not a Dark Lord in making by much easier means - legilimency for example, which I don't like, but it is used quite often, or I don't know - talk to Dumbledore. So, my question is why does Snape chooses those ways to make sure that Harry is not next Voldie, if that is what Snape doing of course, which I am not entirely convinced. Carol: > Once Snape discovers that "our new celebrity" really doesn't deserve > his celebrity status, having clearly done nothing intentional to earn > it, (sentence break)he does sneer at Harry ("Thought you wouldn't open a book"), but > he also takes care to provide him (and the entire class) with the > answers to his questions and then asks why they're not all taking > notes. Alla: And again, why simply giving them the information is not enough? Why taking an extra step of humiliating Harry? Carol: That question in itself indicates that he has just conveyed > some very important information (as we discover in HBP when a bezoar > saves Ron's life). Perhaps, as Potioncat suggests, he always opens the > first lesson with these questions. Alla: Perhaps he does, but I would like to hear it from older students to be entirely convinced. I would think that Fred and George or Percy when he tells Harry about Snape would have told him that Snape is peculiar that way - always says the same thing to first years, be ready. Carol: Or perhaps he intended to make the > first lesson memorable to Harry in particular anticipating that he > might just have a need for a bezoar (or for the Draught of Living > Death). It's impossible to say, but if he's DD'sMan, I suspect the latter. Alla: Or perhaps he wanted to make sure that Harry hates him. Carol: > At any rate, he doesn't punish Harry for his ignorance. He only > deducts a single house point for Harry's "cheek" in suggesting that > Snape call on Hermione. Alla: Oh, again too bad I am not at home, cannot quote, but I absolutely disagree that it was a "cheek" as Snape called it. Harry says it quietly and the way I read it sincerely hoping to let Snape get an answer to his question, because as Harry truthfully told him - beforw ( TWICE, I think), he does not know the answer. But Snape is still asking the questions after that. Carol: > It's possible that Snape is trying from the outset to keep Harry from > being treated as "a pampered little prince," fearing that such > treatment will go to his head and turn him into a second James (and I > for one think it's a good thing for Harry and the WW at large that > Harry doesn't share James's cockiness.) Alla: Same advice to Snape then - talk to Dumbledore, if Snape is indeed Dumbledore's most trusted man ( which I disagree with,since JKR said that DD has no confidantes), but in case she is wrong on that, surely Dumbledore will tell Snape everything he wants to know about Harry's life? Carol: The point that Harry loses for > Gryffindor for not helping Neville is just Snape's nastiness, but the > interrogation at the beginning of the class is probably something > entirely different. Alla: As Lebeto said upthread I think that point that Harry looses for not helping Neville is a spot on example for "you loose if you do and you loose if you did not" strategy which Snape , IMO seems to employ to Harry, but I also think that interrogation in the beginning was the same thing. Actually, I think the word "interrogation" you used is very telling and I absolutely agree with it. Don't you think that the teacher is not supposed to INTERROGATE eleven year old muggle born, who has very little clue of WW yet? Carol: Unfortunately for both > characters (assuming that Snape is loyal to Dumbledore), this > perceived enmity becomes more real as each behaves in ways that > reinforce the initial impression. Long before HBP, Snape is convinced > that Harry is arrogant, dishonest, and mediocre; Harry is convinced > that Snape is not just unfair and unpleasant but evil. > > But in the first Potions lesson, all this is in the future. Alla: Still don't understand how you arrive at the conclusion that at the end of this lesson it is all in the future. Harry has the memories of Snape doing many nasty things to him during this lesson ( IMO only of course), so is Harry supposed to thank Snape for that and leave the lesson feeling much love for Snape? I think that after the first lesson and for the years to come Snape eats the fruits of his labor,which he so meticulously or not planted during that lesson. Carol: > It serves Snape's purpose (to discover the extent of Harry's > knowledge), but like everything else in the Potterverse, it has > unintended consequences that extend at least six years into the > future. I expect to see further consequences, perhaps something > related to the Draught of Living Death (not to mention the culmination > or resolution of their mutual antagonism), in Book 7. > Alla: It serves a purpose for the reader, yes, absolutely. It IS memorable and foreshadows the use of bezoar and probably Draught of Living Death, but I don't buy that Snape actually intended for Harry to remember it six years later. JMO of course, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 22:59:35 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:59:35 -0000 Subject: Motivations for Joining DEs - Pure blood and Propaganda In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140938 Elyse: If he wanted to hide the fact that > he was a half-blood, writing it in the front of his potions book was > really stupid thing to do. A sixteen year old trying to hide how > pure his blood is in such a glaringly obvious place would have made > a terribly incompetent spy dont you think? > Carol responds: But he didn't write it in the front of his book. It's on the back cover in tiny handwriting: ". . . Harry bent low to retrieve the book, and as he did so, he saw something scribbled along the bottom of the back cover in the same small, cramped handwriting as the instructions that had won him his bottle of Felix Felicis . . . This Book is the Property of the Half-Blood Prince." (HBP Am. ed. 193) It's not in plain view for everyone to see. He may even have been embarrassed by it. And chances are, he kept his precious book to himself. I doubt very much that he shared his Potions secrets with the likes of Macnair or Crabbe Sr. or whoever the Slytherins in his own year happened to be. Carol From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 23:53:05 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 23:53:05 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories dups or originals? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140939 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > ...edited... > > > SSSusan: > It may be an inconsistency, but then again, it may be that there are > *options* for how to use the pensieve. Perhaps it's like when we're > editing something in a word processing program or in e-mail. We > highlight the text and then we have the *option* of COPY or CUT. > Perhaps with Snape in the Occlumency lessons, he selected CUT, > whereas Slughorn selected COPY. > > Oh, stop sniggering. It's a possibility, right? :-) > > Siriusly Snapey Susan bboyminn: Actually, I think you have hit it right on the head. Except instead of saying COPY or CUT, I would say CALL or RECALL. Memories are tricky things. Ever go back to your childhood home? Was everything the way you remembered it? Probably not. As we get older, we don't actually remember a specific event. What we remember is the last time we remembered it; secondary memories. Eventually the original memory is lost and we simply remember the memories rather than the event. How does this apply? I'm glad you ask, but first let me ask a question. If pulling the memory strand from your head completely removed the memory, then how would you even know to look at it in the Pensieve since, in theory, you no longer had a memory of the event? Of course, the answer is secondary memories. You remember pulling it out. You remember thinking about WHAT you wanted to pull out and why. You remember the last time you remembered this memory. So, even if you remove an event from memory, you have plenty of secondary memories to remind you that the event occurred. So, finally to CALL and RECALL. Calling up a memory is calling to the forefront of your mind the original event. If you remove this, the details of the orginal event are lost (well, actually stored), though your many secondary memories remain. If you Recall an event, that is the equivalent of bringing forth a copy of the event to the forefront of your mind. If this is removed, the original event remains. Slughorn obviousl /recalled/ the event and gave Harry and Dumbledore that copy. On the other hand, Snape who fully intended to hide his memories, /call/ forth the original event and stored it in the Penseive. His secondary memories are too vague and non-visual to reveal anything to Harry if they were forced from him, so he is safe. His secondary memories also allow him to remember which memories should be put back after the fact. Of course, I'm making all this up, but you must admit it does have a nice ring to it. Steve/bboyminn From oppen at mycns.net Fri Sep 30 00:08:06 2005 From: oppen at mycns.net (ericoppen) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:08:06 -0000 Subject: The Ton-Tongue Toffee Incident---my own thoughts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140940 I've posted earlier on this list (I get it in digest form and find it easier to post from the website, so I don't always answer things that look interesting) that in my opinion, the famous "Prank" played by Sirius Black against Severus Snape had as much to do with over- familiarity with werewolves as actual malice. After all, Sirius had been hanging around with a werewolf for _years,_ and _he_ hadn't come to harm, now had he? The same sort of thing could be said about the Ton-Tongue Toffee Incident. The twins probably have almost _no_ exposure to Muggles, and no idea of how terrifying they might find even simple magic, or how difficult it can be to heal without magic. In _their_ world, it's perfectly normal for sub-teenagers to bat around on fast brooms fifty or a hundred feet up in the air, and if they fall, a broken bone or two's all that's likely. In other words, they have a very different perspective on what is dangerous and what isn't---and, in their world, a Ton-Tongue Toffee is No Big Deal. I think that if they had known just _how_ dangerous what they did was, they'd probably be at least somewhat horrified. The analogy I like to use here is that of horsemanship. Let us say, forex, that I am a superb horseman---that there's literally nothing on four hooves I can't ride; circus riders beg me to teach them. And I'm also 16 years old or so, and have someone in my life who's a total PITA, and has been since Day One. I could see myself, in this situation, inducing my nemesis to ride a dangerous buckin' bronco, thinking that "it's not dangerous---anybody can do _that!_ He'll get a good scare, though, and won't it serve him right?" all the while not considering that my enemy does _not_ have anything like my taken- for-granted level of skill, and may well find himself in dreadful danger doing something I could do blind drunk and blindfolded. I kind of think that Muggle Studies should be mandatory for all non- Muggle-raised Hogwarts students, with supervised, _wandless_ excursions into Muggleworld for the older kids. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 30 01:45:41 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 01:45:41 -0000 Subject: Identifying Enemies (was:Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140941 > >>Betsy Hp: > > I seriously doubt Molly is interested in subjugating the Muggle > > population, but she does consider Muggles as less intelligent or > > capable than wizards. > > > >>a_svirn: > Less intelligent? "Canon", please. I don't remember her ever saying > anything of the sort. Betsy Hp: Molly doesn't come right out and *say* it. But I think it's implied that she sees them as somewhat...lesser than. Her "packed with Muggles" comment (p.91) in PS/SS (introductary statement too, interestingly enough) is suggestive to me. In CoS she comments about Arthur's car, "Muggles *do* know more than we give them credit for, don't they?" (p.66) In OotP, there's her reaction to Arthur's interest in using Muggle medical techniques, "but even you, Arthur, wouldn't be *that* stupid --" (p.507) Finally there's her general distaste for Arthur's interest in anything Muggle. Again, I think Molly's prejudice is of a polite sort. Quite Victorian in it's way. I'm sure if she lived in a certain time period she'd have been all over sending missionaries to "civilize" the unfortunate "savages" throughout the world, and would honestly feel she was doing something good. > >>a_svirn: > Less capable? Well, they are, aren't they? There is no way around > that one. Betsy Hp: Heh. Put me and a wizard in an unknown location and tell us both to contact someone quick, and I'm betting my cellphone would beat their wand. Patronus or no patronus. Plus, you know, pants. There's no way you can convince me that robes beat pants. > >>a_svirn: > As for her reaction to Rita's insinuations, for one thing, she did > NOT believe Hermione a "scarlet woman". > Betsy Hp: She never called Hermione such, no. But she did seem to believe that Hermione was using her super love potion skills to stomp all over poor young Harry's (and possibly Ron's) heart. (Love potions Molly had been giggling about earlier in GoF. Hmmm, I wonder if Molly felt a bit guilty, like maybe she'd given Hermione ideas....) The interesting thing to me is that Molly *knew* Rita wasn't the most trustworthy reporter at large. Rita had just finished telling all sorts of stories about Arthur, like two months previously. Coupled with her general distrust of Muggles, her sudden distrust of Hermione (a known Muggle-born) strikes me as a tiny bit suspicious. > >>Betsy Hp > > As for the twins.... Okay, I can totally buy at least one of them > > turning out to be an enemy. > >>a_svirn: > Which one? Betsy Hp: Either one. Both. Just something so that their underlying creepiness is shown to be a bad thing. I've no idea if JKR is heading in that direction (though their untouched shop is suspicious, IMO). I do think it'd be more interesting if one turned, giving the other a much needed wakeup call. Fred may seem the obvious choice. He's the more agressive twin. But you know what they say about the quiet ones. Betsy Hp From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Sep 30 02:52:59 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 02:52:59 -0000 Subject: Motivations for Joining DEs (Was: Bullying) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140942 Nora: > So we, of course, don't know what Young!Snape knew about the DEs. > It seems safe to say that the blood thing was their public face, > so we can assume that Young!Snape knew all about that and at > minimum had no problems with it. And I think it's also supported > that Young!Snape had 'issues' with the blood thing. He's one of > the very few characters we've heard 'Mudblood' from (the others > being Voldemort and Draco, and I think Bella?). Jen: Snape calling Lily a Mudblood does evoke the memory of Draco calling Hermione the same. Whether JKR is really going for a "Snape was similar to a boy Draco when he was in school" angle is hard to say. Dumbledore seemed to feel Draco and Harry's instant dislike of each other mirrored Severus and James. If JKR intends this, I see some canon evidence Snape may have been recruited very much like Draco. To set the stage, we hear from Lupin in the "Very Frosty Christmas" chapter how Fenrir recruits new werewolves by preying on children of parents he's angry with as punishment. Voldemort seems be using this strategy as well, if Draco is an example. Lupin said he didn't know 'for a long time' why he was bitten, and Draco doesn't seem to understand exactly why he was recruited, either. His arrogance on the train and belief he'll be rewarded for devotion indicate a certain innocence about the adult drama playing out in the background. Now only a few pages from the Fenrir story, we discover the potion book is 50 years old, JKR's code for "when Tom Riddle was in school." Finding out Eileen Prince originally owned the book meant she undoubtedly knew of Riddle at Hogwarts, and if she was in Slytherin, may have known him well. Now I'm in no way going for the romance angle here (ick), but 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. Like Draco, Snape saw something attractive about the offer at first. Also like Draco, Snape balked when the stakes got too high. I think this is a possible scenario. Nora: > We have the 'Half-Blood Prince', however one wants to read that. > [I tend to agree with a correspondent, who said they found > it "pathetic and cringeworthy and pitiable and contemptible and > embarassing - and absolutely perfectly so." But that's a tangent.] Jen: LOL! As for the nickname, I thought it was meant to be somewhat of a cynical joke on Snape's part. The rest of his potion book comments don't read like someone taking himself *that* seriously, i.e., 'shove a bezoar down their throats'. Nora: > What I wonder is whether there were associates of Voldemort in the > school spreading the siren song of his Dark Magic skillz, as > well. There's always the possibility of unrelated factors, but > I'm not going to speculate about what I don't know I don't know, > when I have shiny information in front of me. Jen: I wish we had more to go on than Sirius' words and the Sectumsempra spell to say Snape was hoping to learning more dark magic from LV. Having *Sirius* assess Snape's personality is like asking Draco to describe Harry for us. To confuse matters, Hermione likens Snape's DADA speech to Harry's for the DA! Perfect moment for us to find out his attraction to dark magic and Hermione draws our attention away to Harry. I think the dark magic was the initial attraction and not the blood purity, even more knowing he was half- blood, but JKR is being remarkably restrained about showing this in a decisive way. Oh wait! We do have the old interview comment here from Royal Albert Hall: "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 we'll get you to teach Potions and see how you get along there"." Jen From juli17 at aol.com Fri Sep 30 02:57:54 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:57:54 EDT Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140943 Lupinlore wrote: Luckily, as JKR has said she regards Snape as "horrible" and "sadistic" and guilty of "abusing his power," I don't think we will see such a contrived and unbelievable reversal. Now, we may well see more revelations, I will be shocked if we don't. But Snape NOT a bully to Harry and the other kids? Snape NOT a reprehensible and twisted product of fascination with the Dark Arts? Snape NOT a horrible, sadistic, and poor teacher? Snape NOT someone who faces very stiff punishment for his inexcusable actions throughout the entire series? In short, Snape NOT what he has been portrayed as in every word and scene ever written about him? Excuse me, but I think I'm going to die of laughter right now :). Julie: I must point out that while Snape has certainly had his share of horrible moments bullying Harry and Neville and abusing his power, etc, if we go by how Snape has been portrayed in "every word and scene ever written about him," then we are right back to where we started, which is to say, completely unable to figure out WHO Snape really is! And that is because in no way does every word or scene ever written about Snape prove his horrible, bullying, sadistic, reprehensibleness. (I hope that last is actually a word!). Is it horrible of Snape to save Harry from Quirrel? Is is bullying for Snape to sing over Draco while he heals him? Is it sadistic for Snape to reveal his Dark Mark? Is it reprehensible for Snape to save Dumbledore from the Ring Horcrux curse? How about saving Katie Bell from Draco's potion? Keeping Crabbe and whatisface from choking Neville to death? Joining the rest of the staff in encouraging Lockhart to put his self-aggrandizing words into action? Refusing to make more veritaserum for Umbridge? Those are only some of the *larger* actions Snape has taken that do not support the one-dimensional horrible reprehensible character you're suggesting. I could search books 1-6 looking for all the smaller moments and scenes with Snape where he is either very neutral (acting neither reprehensibly or nobly--greeting McGonagall when she returns from the hospital for instance), or doing/saying something that is too ambiguous to even judge without further information (the whole Spinner's End scene for one--or the whole Tower scene for another, where Snape ignores every opportunity to gloat over his supposed victory or to torture that most infuriating of his students, Harry). Really, while Snape has enough going against him to be easily labelled a "horrible" person based on his worst moments, a carefully unsentimental look at *all* his moments don't support so simple a conclusion. In fact our dear ex-Professor of Potions and DADA is as deeply contradictory a character as JKR has repeatedly told us--"Snape is a deeply horrible person." AND "There is *more* to Snape than meets the eye." I.e. Snape is definitely more than just the oh so obviously horrible person Harry (thus, we) sees! Julie (trying to look deeper) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Sep 30 03:21:18 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 03:21:18 -0000 Subject: Motivations for Joining DEs (Was: Bullying) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140944 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > Jen: Snape calling Lily a Mudblood does evoke the memory of Draco > calling Hermione the same. Whether JKR is really going for a "Snape > was similar to a boy Draco when he was in school" angle is hard to > say. Dumbledore seemed to feel Draco and Harry's instant dislike of > each other mirrored Severus and James. It does seem rather parallel to me as well--the use of the word is so profoundly marked that I think we're meant to note who uses it and who doesn't, as well as the reactions of those who don't. It's just levels of painful irony to find out that one person who uses it is partially tarring himself with the same brush to do it. > I'm in no way going for the romance angle here (ick), but 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. Upthread the idea that Prince relatives could have pushed young Snapey into doing something. But IMO, something militates against this coming from Eileen or her relatives: there's a wedding announcement in the Prophet. I don't know how things are done in the WW, or Great Britain (regarding whether the parents or the couple does it), but you don't generally put an announcement in the paper if you're eloping. 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: LOL! As for the nickname, I thought it was meant to be > somewhat of a cynical joke on Snape's part. The rest of his potion > book comments don't read like someone taking himself *that* > seriously, i.e., 'shove a bezoar down their throats'. I should have been more specific: my correspondent was speaking specifically about the "I am the HBP, yo" screamfest near the end of the book. Is the nickname a cynical joke? I dunno. Seems a little too much attachment to it for that to fly. But then again, I also read that book comment as having less humor and more anger and impatience behind it. YMMV. > Jen: I wish we had more to go on than Sirius' words and the > Sectumsempra spell to say Snape was hoping to learning more dark > magic from LV. Having *Sirius* assess Snape's personality is like > asking Draco to describe Harry for us. True--but Sirius is really quite charitable to Snape in that scene, as we also get to see him when he's *not* being. There are some things still open and curious, of course; but the rest of the 'gang of Slytherins' certainly are DEs (and pieces of work), and we do now have canon on Young!Snape's invention of curses/whatever, one of which is grade A nasty. We also have canon from Bellatrix that Voldie taught Dark Magic to her. This keeps it firmly in the realm of possibility, but certainly not proven. > Oh wait! We do have the old interview comment here from Royal > Albert Hall: "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 we'll get you to teach Potions and > see how you get along there"." 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... 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? -Nora asks out of curiosity, natch From djklaugh at comcast.net Fri Sep 30 03:48:17 2005 From: djklaugh at comcast.net (Deb) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 03:48:17 -0000 Subject: Draco's symptoms in HBP---my own theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140945 (Snip) > They DO, however, practically scream "VAMPIRE!!!" For the gods' > sake, > > this sort of thing is classical Vampire Victim Syndrome! > > Or mayhap we should just Occam-Razor it: DM was under an unprecedented > level of stress that he was not prepared to deal with, and reacted the > same way that most ill-prepared individuals react, i.e., very poorly. > > - CMC (who does not believe that FEMA is disproportionately staffed by > vampires) I agree - I'd say Draco's symptoms are more indicative of stress (can't get the Vanishing Cabinet fixed, LV threatening to kill him and his family, anticipating having to do the "other task", Dad locked up in Azkaban, NEWTs level classes, prefect duties, Snape trying to keep track of him, etc) plus spending so much time in the ROR that he's getting pasty for lack of fresh air, exercise, and sunshine... remember we read in HBP he misses several Quiddich matches plus it seems like he may have dropped off the team all together. Deb (djklaugh) who thinks Draco has a Dark Mark because I can't see LV letting anyone close to him without that method of control over their actions and sign of their commitment to him. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 30 04:09:27 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 04:09:27 -0000 Subject: Snape and DD's ideology (Was: Motivations for Joining DEs ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140947 Nora wrote: > > 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? Carol responds: I can give you one example of teamwork. Snape initiates the effort by all the teachers (or at least the heads of houses) to inform Lockhart that his opportunity to demonstrate his DADA expertise has arisen: When Lockhart enters the room, *all* of the teachers look at him "with something remarkably like hatred," but it's Snape who initiates the action with "Just the man. The very man. A girl has been snatched by the monster, Lockhart. Taken into the Chamber of Secrets itself. Your moment has come at last." In short, Lockhart can either save Ginny Weasley or pack his suitcases. This sentiment is echoed first by Sprout, then by the usually gentle Flitwick, then by Snape again, and then by McGonagall, who puts the stamp of finality on Snape's suggestion by stating that "tonight will be a fine time to do it" (CoS 293-94). The heads of houses have acted as a team following Snape's lead. It's clear that they all hate Lockhart, but they feel no such antipathy to Snape. And his decision to help and protect Draco at Narcissa's request, whether or not he knew the nature of Draco's task (he did not anticipate the third provision), can be interpreted as true friendship or even charity in the sense of agape love, especially when the price of failure is his own death. Faith? Quite possibly he has faith in Dumbledore even after Dumbledore's death by his hand. That's a topic for another post. Hope? I don't know. Maybe he hopes that Voldemort will fall, that the Chosen One for all his failings (in Snape's eyes) will save the WW. For himself, his own future, I'm quite sure he holds no hope. Carol From marilynpeake at cs.com Fri Sep 30 04:15:29 2005 From: marilynpeake at cs.com (Marilyn Peake) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 04:15:29 -0000 Subject: The Ton-Tongue Toffee Incident---my own thoughts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140948 "ericoppen" wrote: > >> The same sort of thing could be said about the Ton-Tongue Toffee > Incident. The twins probably have almost _no_ exposure to Muggles, > and no idea of how terrifying they might find even simple magic, or > how difficult it can be to heal without magic. > >> In other words, they have a very different perspective on what is > dangerous and what isn't---and, in their world, a Ton-Tongue Toffee > is No Big Deal. Marilyn Peake responds: I feel that that underlies so much of the "gray area" behavior of the main characters, including Harry. When Harry delights in others being treated unfairly, it's usually about things that can be easily fixed by magic. Even before Harry truly understands how magic works, e.g. when Hagrid gives Dudley a pig's tail, there's an understanding on the reader's part that what can be produced by magic can probably be undone. In addition to that, there's an understanding that this all takes place within a book series; and, in such a place, "poetic justice" is quite appropriate and can be safely appreciated. Cheers, Marilyn http://www.marilynpeake.com ~~ "The Golden Goblet" Newsletter, now available at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marilynpeake From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Sep 30 04:19:40 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 04:19:40 -0000 Subject: The cave potion and soul pieces (Re: OFH! Snape again ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140949 > Valky: > > Why would Dumbledore order Harry to kill him and then order Snape > > to cover it up? The Horcrux soul piece was never destroyed by > > Dumbledore. Oh yeah the ring was destroyed, but the soul piece.. > > Snape saved Dumbledores life, and the ring was "....no > > longer a Horcrux". But did Voldie die in the encounter? Dumbledore > > never says he did, he never even implies it. And then he gets > > Harry to kill him one night. How strange... > > Jen: I'm guessing you will have an answer for this: "However, a > withered hand does not seems an unreasonable exchange for a seventh > of Voldemort's soul." (chap. 23, p.503, Scholastic). Valky: Yep 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. I think we should all be pretty much on the ball now, that when Dumbledore figuratively implies something, he's usually leaving us to our assumptions. (Saves lying or misdirecting, allow us to misdirect ourselves) Without assumptions of what DD 'figuratively' means by 'exchange', there is no reason at all to think it was destroyed. OTOH there is more, exchange means trade, swap, I give one I get the other. 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. Literal Translation: The ring is no longer a horcrux = LV's soul isn't in the ring exchange for a seventh of Voldemort's soul = I have it. > > Valky: > > OKay, just assuming that my explanation above is the correct one. > Then how could Harry find this out? Heres my favourite theory. > > 1. Snape will tell Harry. Woot! won't that be Bangy. > > "You Killed Dumbledore!!" > > "No I didn't you half-wit, moron. You did!" (more theories snipped > here) > > 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. Paraphrase the context: "..using my own spells against me like your filthy father did!" "Go ahead then kill me like you did HIM!" See, James, not Dumbledore, the opportunity still stands unwasted. > Jen: > ************************************************* > So I started wondering--could the potion in the cave have the > ability to weaken and then possess the person drinking it? Valky: I don't understand to what end really, but I do agree it make sense in relation to LV's experiments as a youngster 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: > This might also explain some of the things Dumbledore said that > night. For instance: "I want to die! I want to die! Make it stop, > make it stop...KILL ME!" These statements echo Harry at the DOM when > possessed by Voldemort: "Let the pain stop, thought Harry. Let him > kill us...End it, Dumbledore..." (chap. 36, p. 816) 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. > Jen: > Now a potion being able to possess someone seems farfatched except > we have a precendent for it with the liquid-like substance of > memories found in a Pensieve and the memory in the diary possessing > Ginny. Valky: I have always liked the comparison with pensieve memories most of all. I felt there was a few things that seemed to click into place with that hypothesis, such as Dumbledore and Sluggy pouring their memories into bottles seems to hint that drinking memories is a done thing (I proposed once that this might be how someone returns removed memories to their body.), and the concept of silver vs green where silver memories are freely given by the owner and green ones would rather be ones that were stolen. In the case of the memory in the Diary I am not sure if the memory did the possessing. I kind of see it more as the softening agent, that prepares Ginny for the soul piece inside which does the actual possessing. > Jen: > To get to the point--could there be a possession protection on all > the Horcruxes? Valky: I absolutely do think there is. It still confuses me what happens to them when Harry destroys them though, for some reason or another he does not get possessed, while I am almost dead certain that, like Ginny, others do, or at least are attempted on, like Dumbledore. Jen: > Because the idea of the withered, blackened hand made > me think of the power of evil being destroyed by Snape, and as it > left the body and disintegrated, it would destory the portal through > which it entered (wand hand). What do you think? > Valky: I really like that actually. 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. For instance in the PS/SS media-TMNBN of Godrics Hollow (a scene that is sometimes considered canon due to the heavy consulting of JKR done before filming) Voldies wand points directly at Harry's dear baby head. Something countered the evil as it entered Harry and it is reflected back to the world at the entry point. Likewise Dumbledore, most probably, attacked the ring with his wand, and the evil would enter at the shortest distance from it hence the wand hand reflects the damage done to the evil. In any case, what Snape and Dumbledore managed to do with, and what was, the curse that was deflected onto DD's hand can only be speculated, but I think that getting close to the mark would be to build a hypothsesis that would work for Harry's scar as well. Valky Reposting because of super stupido typo that made a section lose all meaning.. From marilynpeake at cs.com Fri Sep 30 04:26:39 2005 From: marilynpeake at cs.com (Marilyn Peake) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 04:26:39 -0000 Subject: Damage to Dudley? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140950 "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? Marilyn Peake responds: Having heard this suggestion about Petunia before, the more it makes sense to me that she may be a witch overcompensating for this trait by trying to be an "ultra normal" muggle. This could have happened for several reasons. Maybe Petunia was hurt by magic, or overwhelmed by it, when she was young. Maybe she hated seeing her sister use magic. Or maybe her aversion to magic is simply the result of sibling rivalry and trying to form an identity very separate from her sister's. Cheers, Marilyn http://www.marilynpeake.com ~~ "The Golden Goblet" Newsletter, now available at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marilynpeake From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Sep 30 05:25:35 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 05:25:35 -0000 Subject: Mcgonagal's approach to Harry in HBP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140951 > Musicgal > I > believe that McGonnagall realizes that if she attempts to keep Harry > in school, or even to treat Harry as less than a VIP in the coming > battle, she will lose all contact with him. > McGonagall is smart enough to realize that means cooperating with > Harry and treating him as he is: a dedicated soldier. Valky: I think you are so very right about this Musicgal and Derek. I also think that MacGonagall showed acknowedgement to Harry's band of DA members and acknowledged their ability to fight the DE's attacking Hogwarts alongside the members of the order. In previous books Macgonagall will have been the first in no uncertain way, to rush Ginny, Neville and Ron off to their dormitories to get them out of danger, but in HBP there is no evidence of her even questioning them on it, in fact she sends a teacher away from the danger to run for help, rather than them. IMHO, as I read Macgonagall, I think that she would be a person who respects that Ginny, Neville and Ron had proved themselves in battle in the MOM, and have earned the right to fight if they choose. There are heaps of examples of MacGonagall doing exactly this sort of thing such as enlisting Harry to Gryff Quidditch Team in his first year, offering Hermione the Time-turner in her third year etc. I am fairy certain that once you prove yourself by Proff Mac's standards she will always respect it. Harry, I am sure, has her respect and she will continue to treat him as something of an equal. Musicgal > Another thing is that I think he will need to cooperate with her, > too. Harry will have to let other people help him with this final > battle if he has any chance of winning it. Valky: I agree with this too, and I think it's shown in OOtP and in PS/SS that as much as MacGonagall respects you she won't hesitate to speak her mind if she thinks you need it. In OOtP, obviously, Harry has proven himself to many, including Proff Mac, that he has every right to speak his mind about the terrifying Dark Wizard the *he* fought only a few months ago. But OTOH she doesn't hesitate to question him on the wisdom of confronting Umbridge over it all. In that way, it is definitely important to Harry that he understands and respects her right back, it is how she prefers to be treated and she can certainly arrange herself obstructively if you don't afford her decent respect by her standards. Musicgal: > Especially if a Horcrux > is in Hogwarts, which it very well could be. Valky: I am certain that Harry will need to call upon Hogwarts to help locate a Horcrux, as well as needing their backing in coming battles. As long as Hogwarts still stands, and I am sure it will with DD's help for a time, then Harry will always have veritable army of loyal backers - Nearly Headless Nick and his ghosts, Portraits (Sir Cadogan and Phineas),Hagrids Forest buddies and Grawp, as well as a number of the staff and students. It will be worth his while to keep his courtesy with McGonagall, but I can't see her going out of her way to make it hard for him to do that. Musicgal: > I believe that this idea of cooperation includes other things except > for Hogwarts. I think Harry will have to cooperate with the Ministry > in order to get over necessary steps. Valky: Here is where I first disagree, I don't think that Harry should necessarily cooperate with MOM interest at all. OTOH I see him providing them with the needed services to save their slimy butts. It will be Harry's friends and cohorts that descourge (made up word I think) the WW, they will act outside MOM authority most likely, but the MOM will want the credit for it anyway. I can see Harry just sick of it all and handing over the tokens of proof to Scrimgeour saying "Oh here!, squabble amongst yourselves for OoM's and the like! I have bigger fish to fry!" after he's driven off the Dementors, relocated the Giants and neutralised the Werewolf uprising. Valky From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Fri Sep 30 08:59:32 2005 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:59:32 -0000 Subject: The Ton-Tongue Toffee Incident---my own thoughts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140952 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ericoppen" wrote: > I've posted earlier on this list **snip*** of all the discussion I agree with ecricoppen wrote: > I kind of think that Muggle Studies should be mandatory for all non- > Muggle-raised Hogwarts students, with supervised, _wandless_ > excursions into Muggleworld for the older kids. Doddie here: I always got the impression that DD tried to make muggle studies a mandatory subject..but never got support from the govenors. I have no cannon for this other than--Malfoy Sr's muggle prejudices, his influence over the board of govenors and within the MOM, and the ww treatment of squibs... And I think muggle studies should be mandatory for all students...wizard and muggleborn alike.. Doddie (who would have liked to see how Dean, Seamus, and Neville would have done in muggle studies...) From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Sep 30 09:27:58 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 09:27:58 -0000 Subject: Identifying Enemies (was:Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140953 > Betsy Hp: > Molly doesn't come right out and *say* it. But I think it's implied > that she sees them as somewhat...lesser than. Her "packed with > Muggles" comment (p.91) in PS/SS (introductary statement too, > interestingly enough) is suggestive to me. In CoS she comments about > Arthur's car, "Muggles *do* know more than we give them credit for, > don't they?" (p.66) a_svirn: Yes, it does sound patronizing. But then, the great muggle-lover Arthur is rather patronizing too. > Betsy Hp: In OotP, there's her reaction to Arthur's > interest in using Muggle medical techniques, "but even you, Arthur, > wouldn't be *that* stupid --" (p.507) a_svirn: Well, it *was* stupid. > Betsy Hp: Finally there's her general > distaste for Arthur's interest in anything Muggle. > > Again, I think Molly's prejudice is of a polite sort. Quite > Victorian in it's way. I'm sure if she lived in a certain time > period she'd have been all over sending missionaries to "civilize" > the unfortunate "savages" throughout the world, and would honestly > feel she was doing something good. a_svirn: Personally I don't see her bothering to civilize "savages". It's more of a Hermione's sort of thing. > > Betsy Hp: > The interesting thing to me is that Molly *knew* Rita wasn't the most > trustworthy reporter at large. Rita had just finished telling all > sorts of stories about Arthur, like two months previously. Coupled > with her general distrust of Muggles, her sudden distrust of Hermione > (a known Muggle-born) strikes me as a tiny bit suspicious. > a_svirn: But it was Rita who drew public attention to Hermione's origins, not Molly. Yes, Rita is not the most reliable source in the WW, but she manages sometimes to hit the truth, especially if it sensational enough. And, frankly, the accusations against Hermione might seem quite plausible to Molly for the reasons that had nothing to do with her being muggle-born. Consider for a moment: her classmate asserted that Granger is "brainy" enough to contrive a highly potent and dangerous potion. And little did she know how right she was! Yet Molly knew perfectly well that Hermione's record when it came to illicit potion-brewing was not what one might call pristine. a_svirn From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Sep 30 10:09:56 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:09:56 -0000 Subject: Identifying Enemies (was:Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140954 > > Betsy Hp: > In OotP, there's her reaction to Arthur's > > interest in using Muggle medical techniques, "but even you, > Arthur, > > wouldn't be *that* stupid --" (p.507) > > a_svirn: > Well, it *was* stupid. 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. From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Fri Sep 30 10:54:10 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:54:10 -0000 Subject: Snape and DD's ideology (Was: Motivations for Joining DEs ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140955 Nora wrote: > > 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? Carol responds: I can give you one example of teamwork. Snape initiates the effort by all the teachers (or at least the heads of houses) to inform Lockhart that his opportunity to demonstrate his DADA expertise has arisen: When Lockhart enters the room, *all* of the teachers look at him "with something remarkably like hatred," but it's Snape who initiates the action with "Just the man. The very man. A girl has been snatched by the monster, Lockhart. Taken into the Chamber of Secrets itself. Your moment has come at last." In short, Lockhart can either save Ginny Weasley or pack his suitcases. This sentiment is echoed first by Sprout, then by the usually gentle Flitwick, then by Snape again, and then by McGonagall, who puts the stamp of finality on Snape's suggestion by stating that "tonight will be a fine time to do it" (CoS 293-94). The heads of houses have acted as a team following Snape's lead. It's clear that they all hate Lockhart, but they feel no such antipathy to Snape. Elyse: I don't know how convincing this is as an example of teamwork but, at the end of GoF, he accepts an uncomfortable truce with Sirius Black, the person who nearly got him killed years before: "Very slowly - but still glaring at each other .... Sirius and Snape moved toward each other and shook hands. They let go extremely quickly." Or something like that.Dont have GoF with me. I think this would be a splendid example of teamwork really. I mean the kind of bitter enmity Snape and Sirius share, is put aside as they prepare for the Wizarding World War 2. That you can work with someone who bullied you years before, pulled a psychotic prank that nearly got you killed, and someone who you believed for 13 years, betrayed his best friends to be murdered while you did all you could to save them at the time, well I'd say that's a sort of teamwork, even if they didn't actually do anything together. Carol: And his decision to help and protect Draco at Narcissa's request, whether or not he knew the nature of Draco's task (he did not anticipate the third provision), can be interpreted as true friendship or even charity in the sense of agape love, especially when the price of failure is his own death. Elyse: Once again I don't know how convincing this is, but as Lupin says, Snape did concoct the Wolfsbane potion perfectly, despite the fact that he hated and suspected Lupin of helping a mass murderer into the castle. Of course you can say this was done out of duty but I guess you could construe it as a form of charity? I mean he could have refused to make the potion before DD hired Lupin, but he agreed and made it "perfectly, so I did not suffer as I usually do at the full moon." Carol Faith? Quite possibly he has faith in Dumbledore even after Dumbledore's death by his hand. That's a topic for another post. Hope? I don't know. Maybe he hopes that Voldemort will fall, that the Chosen One for all his failings (in Snape's eyes) will save the WW. For himself, his own future, I'm quite sure he holds no hope. Elyse: I agree, completely. If he had any hope for himself pre HBP, hes definitely lost it now. As for the faith question, I would have to say, that the most glaring example we have of Canon Snape is the time that he came to Dumbledore. It was a year before LV was destroyed, and at that time LV was at the height of his powers, the Death Eaters outnumbered the Order ten to one, they were being killed off one by one, and LV was slowly taking over the world. There wasn't any hope that he could be stopped, it was an atmosphere of fear and suspicion that hung over the WW. And in such circumstances, a change of allegiance to the losing side shows an immense amount of faith. Especially in an old man's chess pieces. And I think in order to change sides, he must have had not only faith in DD but hope that the losing side would win, hope that he would not get caught out by LV. This would have rested a lot on his Occlumency skills, so he would have had to have faith in his own Occlumency powers, and faith that he was taking a "great personal risk" for the plans made by a DD, which he trusted, would not fail. So I guess in order to do that, he must have had to believe the best of Dumbledore. Of course all this relies heavily on DD's man!Snape, so completely useless if you're an OFH theorist. Thought Id have a crack at it anyway. Elyse From allilova at davidson.edu Thu Sep 29 02:00:27 2005 From: allilova at davidson.edu (strina_brulyo) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 02:00:27 -0000 Subject: Snape's patronus in Book 7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140956 "Jen Reese" wrote: > Snape's new form would have to > reflect his alliance with Dumbledore to be of any real use for > proving himself to the Order. Some favor him casting a phoenix, but > I'm thinking a lemon drop or cockraoch cluster myself, lol. Does it > have to be an animal? If so, I guess the phoenix even though that's a little pat. Alina: I don't think it could be a phoenix because Rowling has confirmed that the phoenix is Dumbledore's patronus. Of course it's not impossible that DDM!Snape's patronus took this new form after his mentor's death, but that would be somewhat predictable and trivial. > Lupinlore: > > Also, when asked about Snape's patronus before HBP JKR said she > > wouldn't reveal it because it would give too much away. That > > implies something about Snape's patronus BEFORE the events on the tower > Jen: You are saying JKR didn't tell us Snape's patronus before HBP > because it would give away his evil nature prior to his big reveal > on the tower? She could also be saving the surprise that despite > what we see on the tower, Snape is not evil and we could deduce that from his patronus. Alina: There was an old thread in this forum about Snape's patronus being a unicorn. A very nice theory. If you'll let me bring forward some of the arguments again: * a unicorn's horn (unicorns are also called alicorns) neutralizes poison. The legend goes that when the Snake, or whatever form Evil takes, poisoned the river, all the thirsty animals waited for the unicorn to show up, dip its horn in the river and separate the good water from the murky and unclean... and Snape is not only good at antidotes but has superb healing abilities in general. * the unicorn is pure at heart but can be very fierce and protective...and captured or tamed only by a maiden (Lily?) * it is also thought to symbolize renouncement of earthly pleasures... fits perfectly a person who lives in a "Muggle dunghill," has no lavish furniture whatsoever, always dresses the same, and has no great inclination to spend too much money on stupid things such as shampoo:) * a pure white unicorn would stand in a stark contrast to Snape's black appearance, which would reinforce the message "don't judge a book by its cover" * haha -- that carries little weight, but just a thought -- Snape's astrological sign is a Capricorn... kind of close... * and yes, the Lion and the Unicorn fought for the crown... the Lion and the Unicorn are great enemies because they have different dispositions and approaches; one is an extrovert, and the other a solitary introvert. However, they do not represent Good and Evil; rather, they are complementary, and if they work together for a common cause, no other beast can withstand them. They are seen in an actual union in the British coat-of-arms...the Lion representing England and the Unicorn Scotland (and JKR is connected to both England and Scotland). Since we associate lions with Gryffindor - and therefore with James and Harry (who also happens to be a Leo) - that fits pretty well. * honestly, it's surprising that we haven't seen the unicorn, that powerful magical creature, "IN ACTION" anywhere in the books. Wherever it has appeared so far, it's been always quite passive (dead or petted by Lavender and Parvati). Totally unlike the phoenix, for example... so Book 7 would be the time - at least that's how I feel. And now, a unicorn patronus would so totally satisfy Lily/Snape shippers!!! The unicorn would actually BE Lily, in a way: * both the lily/fleur-de-lys and the unicorn are very, very eloquent traditional symbols of purity and innocence. I even saw a heraldic image of a unicorn feeding upon a fleur-de-lys. Both are dazzlingly white, shiny, and pure things... * the unicorn is related to the feminine * (I read this in a Mugglenet Editorial) - in Philosopher's Stone, Hagrid says that whoever slays a unicorn is doomed to live a half- life, a cursed life...but we know that Voldemort was already leading that same kind of existence after the killing curse bounced back to him, repelled by the purity of a mother's love * James and Lily could also fit in the "Lion and Unicorn" image since Lily at first found James to be no more dateable than the Giant Squib, but they ended up getting married and defying LV together. If Snape's patronus truly is a unicorn, that wouldn't be so hugely revealing to the members of the Order, and they would have no way of knowing the Lily connection unless: a) Lily had the same patronus, and b) they knew what hers was. However, because of the symbology involved, the unicorn would give away a lot to the reader, hence Rowling's refusal to disclose it. I can see a stag and a unicorn from HP's and SS's wands uniting (as their prototypes did when they were alive) to drive away dementors or some other evil force in Book 7. -Alina From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Fri Sep 30 11:29:42 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:29:42 -0000 Subject: Motivations for Joining DEs - Pure blood and Propaganda In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140957 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" wrote: > > Elyse wrote: > > So if nobody knew about it, he could have pretended to be pureblood > > well into his fifth year, when he made that Mudblood comment. > > zgirnius: > I have no opinion as to young Snape's views on the blood purity > issue. However, I am not so sure that he posed as a pureblood at > school. I am not even sure that he *could* have, had he wanted to. > The problem is that his Muggle parent is his father, making him a > Snape, not a Prince. The Wizarding World would seem to be small > enough that pureblood types in Slytherin for whom this was an > important issue would know there were no pureblood Wizarding Snapes. Elyse: So how come Voldemort was able to masquerade around as a pureblood? Okay, even if he wasnt faking it, how can he go around telling DE's that he is pureblood? I remember Bella screaming herself hoarse at the Ministry about Harry besmirching LV's name with his half-blood tongue. Surely an enterprising, faithful DE like Bella can look up "A Wizarding Geneology" and try to find out if she is related to her master by intermarriage among purebloods. Then she could go around even more crazed with loyalty since she was distantly related. I am surprised that no DE has tried to find out LV's parentage by now, especially if he has told them he is a descendant of Salazar Slytherin and speaks Parseltongue. The point is,if LV can pretend to be a pureblood so can Snape. > zgirnius: > I'm not so sure we can even conclude that Sorting of half-bloods into > Slytherin is unusual. From the evidence we have, it does not seem > that Slytherin House has far fewer students than any other house > (rather, the Houses would seem to be of approximately equal size). We > know plenty of purebloods get Sorted into other houses. (James > Potter, Sirius Black, the entire Weasley clan, Neville Longbottom, > just to list some Gryffindors). Elyse: I snipped a little, but they were excellent points, and I cant really refute them. I just imagined that Slytherin was a predominantly pureblood house since the Sorting hat keeps harping on about how Slytherin wanted to teach those whose ancestry is purest and from what weve seen of the Chamber of Secrets, Salazar Slytherin was a lunatic when it came to "purging the school of those who were unworthy of learning magic". He hid a Basilisk in the castle for future use! And as Ron says, he was the one who started the pureblood stuff. I doubt anybody with that kind of fanatical zeal for killing Mudbloods would allow too many of them into his own house. Not unless they had the necessary qualities anyway. Elyse From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Sep 30 12:42:11 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:42:11 -0000 Subject: Motivations for Joining DEs (Was: Bullying) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140958 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? Pippin From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Sep 30 12:42:24 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:42:24 -0000 Subject: Harry's bias again, answering several posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140959 Finwitch: > > However, as different people learn in different ways - that which may > appear as 'disturbance' of class might actually be a learning method > to the one doing it. (Harry's taking notes makes this obvious). A > kinetic learner requires movement in order to learn. And what disturbs > is also different. Some might actually find silence and stillness as > so disturbing that the demand prevents their learning... Ceridwen: I agree. I learn by taking notes - my best class back in high school encouraged note-taking. The teacher lectured, and we either took notes or slept through class (the teacher had the book memorized, sleepers could look it all up at home). I'm also a 'kinetic' learner, moving around, foot-tapping, pencil-chewing, leg-bobbing. And, I've had some trouble with teachers over this, because esp. the moving around and foot-tapping, do disrupt the students around the one doing it. The only way to accomodate all students is to have the noisier ones be quiet, unfortunately. Since these distractions also affect the quality of the teaching. Amiable Dorsai: > All I can find is this: > "Who's that teacher talking to Professor Quirrell?" he asked > Percy. > "Oh, you know Quirrell already, do you? No wonder he's looking so > nervous, that's Professor Snape. He teaches Potions, but he doesn't > want to -- everyone knows he's after Quirrell's job. Knows an awful > lot about the Dark Arts, Snape."--Sorcerer's Stone Ceridwen: Thanks! It's difficult to take part in a discussion when one's source is long-gone. I do recall Harry hearing various things about Snape which must have come later, then. Which would only feed his initial impression, not create it. Potioncat: *(snipping example of feast and mention of dream)* > So Harry goes into Potions thinking that Snape dislikes him for some > reason. He has the pain in his scar and the forgotten dream in the > back of his mind. (Or so we can surmise.) While there may be some > wondering in his mind, I'm not so sure there was a real bias yet. Ceridwen: Thanks as well. I've wondered about the dream, at the time I thought it was Snape laughing, now I think it was Voldemort. And, the scar hurting, too, when Snape looked at him. I do recall the later incident of Harry in his IC when the same thing happened again. He did fail to note that Quirrel was there on both occasions (and so, we don't think of it until later, either). Potioncat: *(snip)* > So, Snape was certainly biased. Whether he was testing Harry, > punishing Harry or if he always started a class like that, I cannot > say. Ceridwen: I'm not suggesting that Snape wasn't in some way biased, either by his feelings about James, or the rumors he mentioned to Bellatrix that people thought Harry might be a Dark Wizard. Just that at the time, we didn't know about them. Given that, it didn't seem all that odd to me that Snape may have singled Harry out, seeing some behavior that Harry wouldn't notice himself. lebeto answers in post 140917 that Harry wasn't taking notes, but that at one point, he and Ron look at each other. If Snape wasn't giving Harry his full attention to that point, since this apparently came just after his speech, he may have misconstrued that the two were not paying attention, instead of reacting to what he'd said. Alla: *(snip)* > ...TO ME it is highly unlikely that first years are given any > homework, since muggle borns have very little idea what magic is in > general and it is not very wise (IMO of course) to give them homework, > before they ever met a teacher and gotten any instructions on how to > proceed as such. Ceridwen: I agree that first-years wouldn't, or at least shouldn't, have homework, for the reasons you state. That doesn't stop them from browsing through their books to become familiar with the courses. Hermione did it, and showed it off by raising her hand, the only one who did, IIRC. Maybe she just didn't catch on that this wasn't the time to do that, a social thing that an 11 year old might easily mistake. Snape may have thought that Harry should have at least looked over his books. Though, why those specific things should have stuck, seem to support a Snape who thought Harry was a Dark Wizard (Draught of Living Death? Powerful antidote to poison? Who needs those in everyday life?). Snape also doesn't seem to know that a) Harry just got his books recently, in fact, just found out he was a wizard, recently and b) had no support at home for his lessons, and an 11 year old child, unless that child is Hermione, wouldn't necessarily want to start reading his school books early. Maybe wizarding parents encourage such a thing, I don't know. But he did overlook that Harry was raised Muggle. Alla: > Therefore asking Harry something which Snape KNOWS that he does not > know is at very least unfair and IMO can be constituted as singling > out and bullying. Ceridwen: I agree to singling out, but not to bullying. I've been in classes where teachers do exactly that, when they believe a student isn't paying attention. Usually, they're right. Teachers are pretty swift at sizing up the students in their classes after a few years. Sometimes, they make a mistake about the student. But either way, they then turn to the class as a whole and continue with the lesson, which usually means giving the answers to the questions they have asked before going on. Alla: > Oh, the fact that Hermione knows it does not convince me that > homework was given of course ( Just wanted to say to preface > rebuttal) Hermione reads everything all the time. Ceridwen: No rebuttal on that from me! ;) That's part of Hermione's character. Alla: > Hmmm, the thing is that Snape can figure out that Harry is not a > Dark Lord in making by much easier means - legilimency for example, > which I don't like, but it is used quite often, or I don't know - > talk to Dumbledore. > So, my question is why does Snape chooses those ways to make sure > that Harry is not next Voldie, if that is what Snape doing of course, > which I am not entirely convinced. Ceridwen: Because it feeds into the introductory lesson by making an example of a student before others decide to goof off in class. It also uses examples from the text, which segues into a continuance of the lesson to the entire class. Might be good, might be bad. But it's used by teachers, or at least it was while I was in school. It's a formula. On the 'cheek' thing, Harry's perception and Snape's could be very different. We're only treated to Harry's perspective, which makes sense in the overall book. We're supposed to think of Snape as being bad, esp. in PS/SS, since he's set up as the decoy 'villain'. A soft voice doesn't mean that Harry sounded meek, he may have had some irritation in his voice which is understandable, but he still may not have noticed it. To him, he was being reasonable; to Snape he could have come off as sullen. We only know what Harry thinks, not the impression he gives others. So, Snape, McGonagall, and all the rest, can only see Harry from the outside. We have privileged information. It's hard, at least for me, to keep track of what *everyone* knows, and what only Harry knows. That's why I'm noticing more and more, that we get a very limited view. I'll say, yes, but this and that and why don't they get it, and the answer I receive is, because *they* don't know that. And, we, only knowing what Harry knows except for the very few times we see something that doesn't involve Harry, are bound by his views and perceptions just as much as others are bound by not knowing them. But then, I think we're all like that anyway, we don't know what others around us think. Ceridwen. From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Sep 30 12:51:42 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:51:42 -0000 Subject: Motivations for Joining DEs (Was: Bullying) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140960 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "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. Extrapolation. All of the Unforgivables destroy a person's subjectivity, for example. Imperio destroys the free will. Crucio reduces a person out of consciousness into an animal state, as pain also destroys the mind. And AK is the ultimate disenfranchisement. Or take the graveyard ritual, wherein there are body parts used, and the *forcible* taking of things needed for it from others. I agree that we have a definite lack of consensus, but I'm also fairly convinced that Rowling has a good idea of 'what is dark' and what isn't. Dumbledore does, methinks. And at least in my fairly non- relativistic read on the morals of the Potterverse, there are things that are objectively Dark. This is not to say that all magic which involves the domination of another person/use of them as an object is Dark, necessarily--we get into the really shady stuff like Obliviate here--but there is a common thread of a certain high-handedness to the things labeled as Dark. Horcruxies are the ultimate example of that: how nice of someone to use a person's death to help make themself immortal. -Nora thinks, in short, that Voldemort's attitude is also perfectly Dark: power rules over cooperation and permission From jajaredor at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 21:31:47 2005 From: jajaredor at yahoo.com (Jaja Redor) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:31:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who is RAB again. WAS:Re: Snape and Regulus/OFH!Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050929213147.6650.qmail@web61218.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140961 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. But JKR herself pointed out incomprehensible name changes. For example, in Italian (I think) Professor Dumbledore has been changed to Professor Silencio. The translators couldn't make head or tails out of the deconstruction of 'Dumbledore'. The best they could do was make an association between 'dumb' and 'silent' and came up with 'Silencio'. In that case, the name should have simply been left alone. His name is Dumbledore, which, while it may have meaning in it self, has no meaning in the story, and therefore shouldn't be changed. Other names are in-between, names like Remus Lupin. Both Remus, regarding the legend of Romulus and Remus, and Lupin are, directly or indirectly, wolf related references. If the translator couldn't come up with new names that had the same 'wolf' implications then they should have just left it alone. Just out of curiousity, in the legend of Romulus and Remus, two infants raised by wolves, are their names changed in the various foreign language version of that fable? I guess my basic point is that unless there is a compelling reason to do so, names should not be translated. Just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn Jaja: 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: Dutch - Sirius Zwarts Norwegian - Sirius Svaart Polish - Syriusz Czarny Finnish - Sirius Musta Jaja, who agrees with you at some point but still is thinking about that translation "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 piki25 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 29 23:47:53 2005 From: piki25 at hotmail.com (piki1902) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 23:47:53 -0000 Subject: Crookshanks Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140962 I was wondering if anyone had any theories about Crookshanks......maybe he is an animagus? Its surprising how well he got along with Sirius Black as black dog in POA. "piki1902" From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Sep 30 13:07:16 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:07:16 -0000 Subject: Crookshanks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140963 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "piki1902" wrote: > I was wondering if anyone had any theories about > Crookshanks......maybe he is an animagus? Its surprising how well he > got along with Sirius Black as black dog in POA. > > "piki1902" Hickengruendler: Crookshanks is part cat and part kneazle. That was confirmed by JKR, when she was asked this in an interview. A kneazle is a cat-like creature. According to Fantastic Beasts, it has the ability to detect people, that aren't like they seem to be. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Sep 30 13:13:56 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:13:56 -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 140964 > Jaja: > > > 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: > > > > Dutch - Sirius Zwarts > Hickengruendler: Just a minor point: Dutch is not the same language as "Deutsch". Dutch is spoken in the Netherlands and "Deutsch" is the german word for "german". I just wanted to say this because the german translation will be released tomorrow (in nine hours, to be exact) and I don't want anyone here to have high hopes, that it might clear the R.A.B. mystery. Sirius Black is "Sirius Black" in the german edition and not translated. Therefore Regulus' name won't be translated either. Only very few names are translated in the german edition: Hermione Granger became Hermine Granger, Rita Skeeter became Rita Kimmkorn and Wilhelmina Grubbly-Plank because Wilhelmina Raue- Pritsche. From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 30 13:17:13 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:17:13 -0000 Subject: Crookshanks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140965 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "piki1902" wrote: > I was wondering if anyone had any theories about > Crookshanks......maybe he is an animagus? Its surprising how well he > got along with Sirius Black as black dog in POA. > > "piki1902" Marianne: JKR confirmed in some interview sometime that Crookshanks is part kneazle. Perhaps it was this part of his makeup that allowed him a better chance of communication, however it was done, with Padfoot. And Fantastic Beasts tells us kneazles can become quite fond of individual wizards and witches. Crookshanks certainly seemed to have bestowed this fondness on Sirius. After reading OoP a number of people thought it possible that Harry would find a way to travel beyond the veil. I thought that was possible, too, and that if Harry was to do so, I wondered if Crookshanks would be his guide, going in both directions. On the way in, to find Sirius. And to lead Harry and Co back out, since a property of kneazles is an ability to lead their owners safely home. Marianne, who never thought Crookshanks was the animagus form for Mundungus From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Sep 30 13:27:21 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:27:21 -0000 Subject: Motivations for Joining DEs (Was: Bullying) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140966 Nora wrote: > Extrapolation. All of the Unforgivables destroy a person's > subjectivity, for example. Imperio destroys the free will. Crucio > reduces a person out of consciousness into an animal state, as pain > also destroys the mind. And AK is the ultimate disenfranchisement. Or > take the graveyard ritual, wherein there are body parts used, and the > *forcible* taking of things needed for it from others. a_svirn: On the whole I would agree, but the trouble is we don't know whether the Unforgivables are the "Dark Arts" or not. Rowling never says it in the books. And although I agree with you about their power to destroy a "person's subjectivity", I think there is another one, even more destructive for personhood: the Obliviate. And it is not considered "dark" or "unforgivable". > > I agree that we have a definite lack of consensus, but I'm also fairly > convinced that Rowling has a good idea of 'what is dark' and what > isn't. Dumbledore does, methinks. Yes, and it's a great pity they never bothered to make their knowledge public. a_svirn From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Fri Sep 30 14:02:54 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 07:02:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050930140255.24499.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140967 --- "M.Clifford" 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 ______________________________________________________ Yahoo! for Good Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Sep 30 14:19:32 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:19:32 -0000 Subject: Motivations for Joining DEs - Pure blood and Propaganda In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140968 > Elyse: So how come Voldemort was able to masquerade around as a > pureblood? Okay, even if he wasnt faking it, how can he go around > telling DE's that he is pureblood? zgirnius: I don't insist on it, it is just something that has struck me as odd. And your discussion provided me with a nice place to trot this idea out, thanks! (That someone using a Muggle father's last name could claim to be a pureblood.) About Voldemort, I could see this working out in a couple of ways. One way is that it could have been known that Tom Riddle was a half-blood. Early DEs would not have a problem with this because, while he is only half wizard, what a half!! (The Heir of Slytherin...) And once the Lord Voldemort mystique got going, who would ask? Can you see Bella asking the Dark Lord "Pardon me, your glorious Darkness, but what is your *real* name?" Another would be that he could simply claim that he does not know his parentage. (In fact, this would be *true* at the start of his school days.) His dying mother left the last name "Riddle" at the Muggle orphanage. There are no Wizarding Riddles? She must have been protecting his pureblood father from scandal...or maybe the Muggles at the orphanage just got it wrong. Even by Muggle standards his parentage is not documented. TR Sr. would be considered the father if Merope has provided the Orphanage with documentation of the marriage, but she did not. If she had, the Muggle authorities would probably have tracked him down...such paperwork tends to include things like addresses, places of birth, etc...for both parties. (I live in the US, but I can't imagine this is so different over in England!) So he asserts he *must be* a pureblood, and his claim sticks. (To paraphrase Sluggie, a youth showing such powerful magical abilities must come of good, solid wizarding stock...) > Elyse: I snipped a little, but they were excellent points, and I > cant really refute them. I just imagined that Slytherin was a > predominantly pureblood house since the Sorting hat keeps harping on > about how Slytherin wanted to teach those whose ancestry is purest > and from what weve seen of the Chamber of Secrets, Salazar Slytherin > was a lunatic when it came to "purging the school of those who were > unworthy of learning magic". > He hid a Basilisk in the castle for future use! And as Ron says, he > was the one who started the pureblood stuff. I doubt anybody with > that kind of fanatical zeal for killing Mudbloods would allow too > many of them into his own house. Not unless they had the necessary > qualities anyway. > zgirnius: I tend to cut Salazar Slytherin some slack. The man lived 1000 years ago and most of what we hear about him seems to be oral tradition, which in that time period can get pretty garbled. Can we see GG, HH, and RR being good friends with a man who wanted to kill all Muggleborns? (As the Hat claims he was). If SS lost it at some point, can we even see the other Founders as letting him go his way and do his thing, if his insanity has taken the form of a desire to exterminate all Muggle-borns? I can see some other possible uses for a Basilisk. (To protect the school from Muggle or other attack, for example...) The person who activated the Basilisk and let it loose on the school to go after Muggleborns was Tom Riddle, and this seems to have been the first time in 1000 years that the Basilisk was seen. I could see Slytherin House not getting Muggle-borns, but taking half- bloods and purebloods whose belief systems in some way match "conservative", "pro-pureblood" views. Riddle, for example, cares nothing for his Muggle parent (who he believes at this point is his *mother*). Once he learns of its existence, the Wizarding World is all he wants to be a part of. I could see Snape (if his parents, as we suspect, have an unhappy marriage) to believe that liaisons between Muggles and Wizards/Witches are a *bad idea*, which would also fit. Finally, I could see the Dark Arts as somehow being all tied in with this. (I think Basilisk-taming (creation?) would fall under DA...I would guess SS was a Dark wizard.) Dumbledore does not like them, but it appears that they are to some degree acceptable. Aurors are law enforcement personnel who hunt Dark Wizards, but we never hear them going after the Black family wholesale, do we? Just Bella, who is a known criminal. (In other words, they do go after Dark Wizards, but only when they actually commit overt acts which are considered criminal, like torturing the Longbottoms into insanity...) So a half-blood with an interest in DA might also Sort into Slytherin. From rh64643 at appstate.edu Fri Sep 30 15:18:19 2005 From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 15:18:19 -0000 Subject: Molly's view of Hermione Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140969 > >>a_svirn: > As for her reaction to Rita's insinuations, for one thing, she did > NOT believe Hermione a "scarlet woman". > Betsy Hp: She never called Hermione such, no. But she did seem to believe that Hermione was using her super love potion skills to stomp all over poor young Harry's (and possibly Ron's) heart. (Love potions Molly had been giggling about earlier in GoF. Hmmm, I wonder if Molly felt a bit guilty, like maybe she'd given Hermione ideas....) truthbeauty1 Ok. I have a completely different view of Molly's reaction to the Skeeter report. I think that with her kind of mothers intuition, she has probably kind of noticed that Ron likes Hermione more than he is letting on. Also she would have to be blind to not know that Ginny was very into Harry. Now if you put this together with Molly's protectiveness of Harry, it would be easy for her to be suspicious of Hermione. Hermione is possibly causing emotional stress to 3 of her "children" at once. She has, in Mollly's mind, hurt Ron by not returning his feelings, she has hurt Ginny by going after the boy she likes, and she has hurt Harry by seeing Krum. I mean I can definitely see my mom feeling this way about someone I knew if she thought they might be doing something like that. I just dont see that it has anything to do with Hermoine being Muggle born. From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 30 15:48:51 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 15:48:51 -0000 Subject: Motivations for Joining DEs (Was: Bullying) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140970 Nora wrote: > Upthread the idea that Prince relatives could have pushed young > Snapey into doing something. But IMO, something militates against > this coming from Eileen or her relatives: there's a wedding > announcement in the Prophet. I don't know how things are done in the > WW, or Great Britain (regarding whether the parents or the couple > does it), but you don't generally put an announcement in the paper if > you're eloping. 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. Potioncat: JKR has set us up several times where family is concerned. Who expected the Tom/Marope dynamic? I think it is significant that there is both a Daily Prophet wedding announcement and a Daily Prophet birth announcement. Whether or not the Prince parents approved, it was at least tolerated. (Waves to Nora, glad to know someone else thinks so, too.) 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. But if he has a thirst to prove himself, and if using and creating a certain type of magic gained him recognition, then the Death Eaters may have appealed to him. And I had a sudden Narnia moment: Digory is tempted to steal a magic apple to take back to his sick mother. He resists the tempatation and is given an apple to take back to her. I wonder if LV's pursuit of immortality interested Snape? From rh64643 at appstate.edu Fri Sep 30 15:53:09 2005 From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 15:53:09 -0000 Subject: Damage to Dudley? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140971 hpfan_mom wrote: (snip) > 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? truthbeauty1 : What if we already have an example of a wizard who chose to not enter the wizzarding world. Molly's second cousin, the accountant. Now we already know that both sides of Ron's family are pureblood. That to me would rule out a random, singular muggle cousin. Also we have no examples in the cannon of Squibbs who leave the wizzarding world to find work. Filch is the caretaker of Hogwarts, and Mrs. Figg appears to breed cat hybrids. Besides these two are very involved in what is going on in the wizzarding world and Figg seems to be an Order member. Taking that into consideration, I would have to conclude that this mysterious accountatnt is a wizzard, who, for some reason chose to live a muggle life. Also, no offence to any accontants out there, it is a very sort of non- magical career he has isnt it. Just like Petunia keeps eveything in her life looking pathetically normal, this cousin chooses a very muggle job. If you put into account that if Petunia is a witch, she was raised as a muggle for at least 11 years before Hogwarts letters would have come, and by that time she might have had friends and a life she already liked. She might have fought this discovery tooth and nail. Its just a theory but it would expalin a seemingly throw away line made in the first scene where Harry meets his best friend. From crypticamoeba at gmail.com Fri Sep 30 15:59:05 2005 From: crypticamoeba at gmail.com (crypticamoeba) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 15:59:05 -0000 Subject: Evil Patronus - ties into Snape's Patronus Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140972 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. >From PoA Chapter 12: Lupin continued, "The Patronus is a kind of positive force, a projection of the very things that the dementor feeds upon -- hope, happiness, the desire to survive... "With an incantation, which will work only if you are concentrating, with all your might, on a single, very happy memory." Going via the necessary emotions -- hope, happiness (not necessarly pure or good intentioned), the desire to survive -- is there anything that could say Voldemort could not preform the charm? crypticamoeba From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Fri Sep 30 16:47:50 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 16:47:50 -0000 Subject: Pureblood Pretenders and Sorting Hat Was (Re: Motivations for Joining DEs ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140973 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" wrote: > > > Elyse: So how come Voldemort was able to masquerade around as a > > pureblood? Okay, even if he wasnt faking it, how can he go around > > telling DE's that he is pureblood? > > zgirnius: About Voldemort, I could see this working > out in a couple of ways. One way is that it could have been known > that Tom Riddle was a half-blood. Early DEs would not have a problem > with this because, while he is only half wizard, what a half!! (The > Heir of Slytherin...) And once the Lord Voldemort mystique got going, > who would ask? Can you see Bella asking the Dark Lord "Pardon me, > your glorious Darkness, but what is your *real* name?" Elyse: LOL! Wouldnt that be a scene? She wouldve gotten hit with a Crucio! before you could say "pureblood". > zgirnius: > Another would be that he could simply claim that he does not know his > parentage. (In fact, this would be *true* at the start of his school > days.) >SNIP> So he > asserts he *must be* a pureblood, and his claim sticks. (To > paraphrase Sluggie, a youth showing such powerful magical abilities > must come of good, solid wizarding stock...) Elyse: Yes, I agree it could have happened the way you describe it. Maybe Riddle never told anyone about his parents, even after he found out, claiming he he had no clue himself. Maybe he did tell people he was halfblood at first. And yes, as you said, it would be a suicidal question to ask LV his real name when his nickname itself inspires such fear, nobody can bring themselves to say it. But even in this case, in GoF, he brings Harry to the graveyard where he uses his father's bones to renew his body. And when the Death Eaters make their appearances, Lucius asks how he managed "this miracle". And here Voldy spills the beans on his parentage. He says "My father's bone, naturally, meant that we would have to come here,where he was buried." pg 569- the Death Eaters chapter. So here, all those curious DE's would have had their opportunity. They could see the grave that Harry was bound to, and could probably see the crack in the same grave where the bone powder had come from. Anyone could have sneaked a look when Harry and Voldemort were caught in the phoenix cage, and they would have seen Tom Riddle written on it. Their detective work was cut out for them. But from our experience we know that DE's are hopelessly stupid and would not have taken this golden opportunity to find out the real name of the person whose robes they were kissing a moment ago. All hope is lost then! Or is it? We have Wormtail, dear Wormtail, who heard all of Voldy's banter with Harry about having Muggle parents. His sob story of his witch mother being rejected by his Muggle father, and how young Voldy was born and later avenged himself on "that fool who gave me his name - Tom Riddle". And there we have it! I imagine that this sort of information would not have been available to younger DE's like Wormtail who did not know of Tom Riddle. And I guess Wormtail must have been the center of gossip among DE's later on. Bella probably begged him to recount the magical evening when her master was reborn, and told Wormtail to leave out no details. I doubt he would have kept such an exchange from her, its not everyday you get the family history of Lord Voldemort from his own mouth. And lets face it ;since when has Wormtail been much of a secret keeper? ;-) > > Elyse: I doubt anybody with > > that kind of fanatical zeal for killing Mudbloods would allow too > > many of them into his own house. Not unless they had the necessary > > qualities anyway. > > > zgirnius: > I tend to cut Salazar Slytherin some slack. The man lived 1000 years > ago and most of what we hear about him seems to be oral tradition, > which in that time period can get pretty garbled. Elyse: But as Hermione says, legend always has a basis in fact. I doubt anybody would have spread such rumors about Slytherin just for the heck of it. He sounds like a pretty scary guy, and I wouldnt want to be one he practised his Dark Magic on! zgirnius: I can see some other possible uses for > a Basilisk. (To protect the school from Muggle or other attack, for > example...) 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. zgirnius: > I could see Slytherin House not getting Muggle-borns, but taking half- > bloods and purebloods whose belief systems in some way > match "conservative", "pro-pureblood" views. Riddle, for example, > cares nothing for his Muggle parent (who he believes at this point is > his *mother*). Once he learns of its existence, the Wizarding World > is all he wants to be a part of. I could see Snape (if his parents, > as we suspect, have an unhappy marriage) to believe that liaisons > between Muggles and Wizards/Witches are a *bad idea*, which would > also fit. > So a half-blood with an interest in DA might also Sort into Slytherin. Elyse: I'm really glad you raised this point. Ive been confused about how students are sorted for a while now. I thought they were placed in the houses purely on the abilities they showed - intelligence, bravery, hard work, ambition etc. So this would not take into account the student's personality or direction of development. I assumed that the Sorting Hat wanted to place Harry in Slytherin because he had tranferred Slytherin powers from LV. It was the magical abilities like Parseltongue that mattered, not the ends to which one wanted to use them. But as you say, if students were sorted according to their personality, then pro-pureblood views would have emphasised the ideology of the student under the sorting hat. If so then it depends on which founder's basic philosophy and world view the student agreed with that mattered, more so than the students' individual qualities like cunning, cleverness etc. This seems to be what DD is saying in CoS: (pg 245 Dobby's reward) ****************************************** "'So I should be in Slytherin', Harry said, looking desperately into Dumbledore's face. 'The Sorting Hat could see Slytherin's power in me and it -' 'Put you in Gryffindor',Dumbledore said calmly. 'Listen to me, Harry. You happen to have many qualities Salazar Slytherin prized in his hand picked students. His own very rare gift, Parseltongue...resourcefulness...determination...a certain disregard for rules',he added,his moustache quivering again.'Yet the Sorting Hat placed you in Gryffindor. You know why that was. Think.' 'It only put me in Gryffindor', said Harry in a defeated voice,'because I asked not to go in Slytherin...'" ********************************************* Well, then he goes on to say how our choices matter more than our abilities. But if this is so, why is it such a big deal for Ravenclaw students to be intelligent,and Gryffindors to be brave? And if our choices determine which house we are sorted into, cant we change these choices? Cant a Slytherin take the high road? Or a Hufflepuff choose laziness, or a Gryffindor choose cowardice? And does the Sorting enhance the students' strengths in this respect, while taking them way from students who have the opposite balancing qualities? Elyse who is thoroughly confused about the function of the Sorting Hat by now and thinks that the House system may not be such a good idea after all From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 30 15:42:08 2005 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:42:08 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: <20050930140255.24499.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140974 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... 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... PJ From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Sep 30 16:56:12 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 16:56:12 -0000 Subject: Motivations for Joining DEs - Pure blood and Propaganda In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140975 > Elyse: So how come Voldemort was able to masquerade around as a > pureblood? Okay, even if he wasnt faking it, how can he go around > telling DE's that he is pureblood? Magpie: Pretty easily, it seems to be, given that Lord Voldemort isn't his real name. Bellatrix doesn't know he's Tom Riddle, so she couldn't look anything up (there is no Wizarding titled aristocracy either, so "Lord Voldemort" wouldn't be an inherited thing). He probably presented himself as a mysterious figure, one who speaks Parseltongue etc. and hates Muggleborns and Muggles and people like Bellatrix naturally assumed he was Pureblood. Or at least had two magical parents. It's not like Voldemort allows people to openly question him and he does have an impressive pedigree in his way as the actual Heir of Slytherin. Snape is still using his real name, and certainly when he was at school it would be known he wasn't a Pureblood just as it was known with Tom Riddle. In Harry's class peoples' blood history is often given as a basic fact like hair color. > Elyse: I snipped a little, but they were excellent points, and I > cant really refute them. I just imagined that Slytherin was a > predominantly pureblood house since the Sorting hat keeps harping on > about how Slytherin wanted to teach those whose ancestry is purest > and from what weve seen of the Chamber of Secrets, Salazar Slytherin > was a lunatic when it came to "purging the school of those who were > unworthy of learning magic". Magpie: The hat doesn't really give that definition for Slytherin until fifth year that I remember (the same year Hufflepuff becomes the "all the rest house"), though even in second year their password is "Pureblood." (One wonders what other Slytherin passwords are if that's a sample!) But still, the issue of half-bloods has always been tricky. Harry has *never* experienced any problems from being a half-blood. Hermione gets called a Mudblood by Draco and the Basilisk goes after Muggleborns, but that doesn't seem to be an issue with Harry except when Dumbledore points out that Voldemort chose him as a half-blood over Pureblooded Neville despite his own prejudices. Malfoy never questions Harry's blood and he's our main example of Pureblood Mania. The thing about half-bloods is that they do, at least, have some familial ties to the WW. I can imagine that Slytherin himself would see that. In OotP the Pureblood issue becomes a family one where we learn that the old Purebloods are they are all related to each other, so a half-blood would be very different there than a Muggleborn who has no ties to the Wizarding World at all and is all- Muggle by birth. The fact that Voldemort himself is a half-blood to me suggests this is something like reality where we should never assume that even a Muggleborn couldn't show up in a mask, though it does seem to make sense that a full Muggleborn wouldn't be Sorted into Slytherin. I don't agree with a common fandom idea that Snape was ostracized in Slytherin because he was a half-blood or that his half-blood status had to keep him from embracing Voldemort's ideology so that it couldn't have been a factor in his joining the DEs. We have been told by Sirius that Snape went round with a gang of Slytherins--and in this case I see no reason that Sirius would be lying--and those Slytherins were Purebloods and future DEs. I think they made a place for Snape in their group knowing full well he was a half- blood. People are weird, and in our world racists make exceptions for individuals a lot. -m From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 30 17:52:58 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 17:52:58 -0000 Subject: Pureblood? (was Re: Motivations for Joining DEs - Pure blood and Propaganda In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140976 > > Elyse: > I am surprised that no DE has tried to find out LV's parentage by > now, especially if he has told them he is a descendant of Salazar > Slytherin and speaks Parseltongue. > The point is,if LV can pretend to be a pureblood so can Snape. > Potioncat: You know, when people dive into their ancestry, they usually only claim the important, famous, ancestors; or perhaps the notorious ones. The unimpressive ones just get lumped into an annonymous bunch. And we've been told several times that the Pureblood families aren't really Pureblood. Even the Weasleys who are considered Pureblood apparantly have either Muggle or Mugglborn marriages to account for. At least according to Ron. So while "your" quality of pureness might be an issue to bring up, my quality is just fine. And only someone who would have nothing to lose by pointing fingers would dare to ask Tommy about his. A Pureblood club would have as its members those who can trace their pureblood ancestors back seven generations and those who can't go back quite that far. Perhaps a wizard with a great deal of skill and one parent from a Pure family would be welcomed. But I'll bet just about everyone in the DEs, if they go back far enough, will find a bit of Muggle in their background. From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Fri Sep 30 18:07:50 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 18:07:50 -0000 Subject: Motivations for Joining DEs - Pure blood and Propaganda In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140977 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > Elyse: So how come Voldemort was able to masquerade around as a > > pureblood? Okay, even if he wasnt faking it, how can he go around > > telling DE's that he is pureblood? > > Magpie: > > Pretty easily, it seems to be, given that Lord Voldemort isn't his > real name. Bellatrix doesn't know he's Tom Riddle, so she couldn't > look anything up (there is no Wizarding titled aristocracy either, > so "Lord Voldemort" wouldn't be an inherited thing). He probably > presented himself as a mysterious figure, one who speaks > Parseltongue etc. and hates Muggleborns and Muggles and people like > Bellatrix naturally assumed he was Pureblood. Or at least had two > magical parents. It's not like Voldemort allows people to openly > question him and he does have an impressive pedigree in his way as > the actual Heir of Slytherin. Amiable Dorsai: Also, nobody knows, save Dumbledore, Harry, and whoever they've told. Riddle didn't know his ancestry until roughly his sixth year, and he certainly wouldn't have advertised it. Dumbledore had to work it out for himself as well. Even those who knew Tom Riddle in school would not have been aware of his parentage. Amiable Dorsai From Sherry at PebTech.net Fri Sep 30 18:17:26 2005 From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 18:17:26 -0000 Subject: Mcgonagal's approach to Harry in HBP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140978 > Valky: > I also > think that MacGonagall showed acknowedgement to Harry's band of DA > members and acknowledged their ability to fight the DE's attacking > Hogwarts alongside the members of the order.... > I am fairy certain that once you prove yourself by Proff Mac's > standards she will always respect it. Harry, I am sure, has her > respect and she will continue to treat him as something of an equal. > > Musicgal > > Another thing is that I think he will need to cooperate with her, > > too. Harry will have to let other people help him with this final > > battle if he has any chance of winning it. > > Valky: > I agree with this too, and I think it's shown in OOtP and in PS/SS > that as much as MacGonagall respects you she won't hesitate to speak > her mind if she thinks you need it. > Amontillada: I agree. I get the impression that Prof. MacGonagall has *extremely* high standards. With everything that Harry and his allies have gone through and accomplished, they have proved to her that they're far more than students looking for adventure. (She's undoubtably seen more than a few such students in her years at Hogwarts, and has found that she needs to be both strict and protective with them.) > Voldy: > In that way, it is definitely important to Harry that he > I am certain that Harry will need to call upon Hogwarts to help locate > a Horcrux, as well as needing their backing in coming battles. As long > as Hogwarts still stands....It will be worth his while to keep his courtesy > with McGonagall, but I can't see her going out of her way to make it > hard for him to do that. > At least one, if not more Horcruxes! Hogwarts contains all sorts of resources and objects/knowledge/people (ghosts, portraits, or???) from the history of magic, as well as the Horcrux possibilities that have been mentioned by the group. Even without Harry enrolled there, it'll be an important locale in the war with LV. > > Musicgal: > > I believe that this idea of cooperation includes other things except > > for Hogwarts. I think Harry will have to cooperate with the Ministry > > in order to get over necessary steps. > > Valky: > Here is where I first disagree, I don't think that Harry should > necessarily cooperate with MOM interest at all. Amontillada: If he does, it will have to work both ways! The Minister in particular and the MOM in general will have to cooperate with Harry, rather than expecting him to fall into line for public viewing with their approach. However strong the conflicts between MOM and Dumbledore over issues like the veracity of LV's return, DD's death must have scared many people at the Ministry right out of their...robes! They are going to rethink intensely how they should deal with the growing battle in general and relate to Harry in particular. Amontillada From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 30 18:28:51 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 18:28:51 -0000 Subject: Crookshanks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140979 Hickengruendler wrote: > > Crookshanks is part cat and part kneazle. That was confirmed by JKR, when she was asked this in an interview. A kneazle is a cat-like creature. According to Fantastic Beasts, it has the ability to detect people, that aren't like they seem to be. Carol adds: The exact wording is, "The Kneazle has an uncanny ability to detect unsavoury or suspicious characters" (FBWTFT 24). Interesting that in PoA Crookshanks is initially suspicious of Sirius (presumably because he's an Animagus) but later befriends him, is suspicious of and hostile to Scabbers throughout the whole book (because he's an Animagus *and* "unsavoury"?), but doesn't react at all to Snape (who of course is not an Animagus, but is evidently neither "suspicious" nor "unsavoury" from Crookshanks's perspective). Unfortunately, we never see Snape in the same scene as a Sneakoscope, which would confirm Crookshanks's judgment (though the Foe Glass definitely shows him as Crouch!Moody's enemy and an ally of Dumbledore and McGonagall). As for Crookshanks being an Animagus, in addition to the interview already cited, Ron has Crookshanks smell Pigwidgeon to prove that he's just an owl. Doesn't make much sense to have an Animagus sniff out another Animagus, but it makes perfect sense to have a half-Kneazle cat do so. (An ordinary cat would eat poor Pig!) And in OoP we see Crookshanks in the same scene as Mundungus, the character who most resembles him. Hmm. Mundungus is a pretty shady character but Crookshanks doesn't react to him. Maybe that's an indication of where his loyalties lie, meaning that DD was right to trust both him and Snape? As an aside, we're told on JKR's website that Mrs. Figg's cats are also part Kneazle, which explains how she could use Mr. Tibbles to keep an eye on Harry. Apparently Squibs have an affinity with both cats and Kneazles. (I'm guessing that Filch's cat Mrs. Norris is also part Kneazle since she helps him find students who are breaking the rules.) Carol, noting with appreciation Alina's delicious typo, "Giant Squib," which is even better than "Snipper's End" (which I still like, too) From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Sep 30 19:29:44 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 19:29:44 -0000 Subject: Pureblood Pretenders and Sorting Hat Was (Re: Motivations for Joining DEs ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140980 > Elyse: > But as you say, if students were sorted according to their > personality, then pro-pureblood views would have emphasised the > ideology of the student under the sorting hat. If so then it depends > on which founder's basic philosophy and world view the student > agreed with that mattered, more so than the students' individual > qualities like cunning, cleverness etc. zgirnius: It makes more sense to me this way. Would you really want to be the poor Hat if you had to decide whether Hermione Granger's defining innate ability is courage, cunning, cleverness, or hard work? While she appears to have all 4 in spades, she values courage the most highly. Elyse: > But if this is so, why is it such a big deal for Ravenclaw > students to be intelligent,and Gryffindors to be brave? zgirnius: Well, if the Hat matches people to the House which their values/personality fit best, they would want to bee seen as fitting that House. Ravenclaws value intelligence, they would hope others would see tham as intelligent (for example). Elyse: > And if our choices determine which house we are sorted into, cant we > change these choices? Cant a Slytherin take the high road? Or a > Hufflepuff choose laziness, or a Gryffindor choose cowardice? zgirnius: Once you're Sorted, you're Sorted, but this does not (apparently) mean you are rendered incapable of actions contrary to the image of your House. (Peter Pettigrew, Gryffindor, anyone?) > Elyse > who is thoroughly confused about the function of the Sorting Hat by > now and thinks that the House system may not be such a good idea > after all zgirnius: Hear, hear! Confusion, bad idea, all that. I agree! From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 30 21:55:12 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 21:55:12 -0000 Subject: Why must JKR torture us so? Snape of course was:Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140981 > >>PJ: > > 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? > Betsy Hp: >From JKR of course, that clever woman. It all goes back to PS/SS, I think. Snape gets one of the best introductary scenes of all the books; good or bad, the reader is interested. 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, he was saving Harry's life. Snape wasn't trying to cheat a quidditch win for Slytherin, he endured his colleagues censure to once again protect Harry. And he wasn't picking on a poor unstable professor, he was challenging a dark wizard. (Opinions still vary on the relative sadism of essay assignments. ) So the question seems answered: the cool guy with all the presense is good. Light the candles and pour some champagne, we've got an interesting adult character. Or do we? Because our hero still doesn't like the man. Heads are butted, words are sneered, detentions are given, and yes, essays are still assigned. And yet, Snape isn't racing off to help the newly risen "Heir of Slytherin", he seems upset when young Ginny is grabbed. Snape fails to deliver Harry into the murdering Sirius's hands. He even chastises Harry for skipping merrily off to Hogsmeade while being hunted by said murderer, positively parental behavior there. JKR cunningly continues on in a similar manner throughout the books. Snape fails to undermine Harry when he has a chance, is never actually *seen* to be eating kittens, and generally seems to be working *against* the villain du jour. In fact, Snape is sometimes present and actually helping when the day is saved. He doesn't like Harry's father though, who is supposed to be the next big thing since King Arthur, so that's kind of confusing. > >>PJ: > 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. > Betsy Hp: Ah, but see, it provides an explination for the strange behavior in PoA. How could Snape *not* like cuddly little Lupin? And how dare he seem to hold a certain distaste for the noble St. James. He *must* be evil! But then, from the pensieve memory we learn, the boys have a "history". Doesn't matter, really, who bullied who, in the end. It's a Hatfields vs. McCoys situation. No one remembers who threw the first punch, the point is that a punch was thrown. (Though, again, JKR is being clever in putting Snape in the victim role in this particular scene. She deliberately provokes sympathy for the dark guy and deliberately parallels the light guy with muggle torturing Death Eaters. JKR likes to shake up 'straightforward' readings it seems. Or at the very least mess with our heads. ) > >>PJ: > 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... Betsy Hp: Who said it had to be either or? Frankly, I was glad to see "St. James" die a swift death. Talk about a boring character. James, the spoiled rich kid who had some growing up to do before he could win the fair maiden's hand is *much* more interesting, IMO. Just as Snape the snarky teacher with issues, who nevertheless has a larger "lives saved to date" list then any other character (IIRC), is a heck more interesting than "St. Snape" or "Demon Snape". It's three dimensions and it's beautiful. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 30 22:36:49 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:36:49 -0000 Subject: Harry's bias again, answering several posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140982 > Ceridwen: Snape also doesn't seem to know that a) Harry just > got his books recently, in fact, just found out he was a wizard, > recently and b) had no support at home for his lessons, and an 11 year > old child, unless that child is Hermione, wouldn't necessarily want to > start reading his school books early. Maybe wizarding parents > encourage such a thing, I don't know. But he did overlook that Harry > was raised Muggle. 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: > So, Snape, McGonagall, and all the rest, can only see Harry from the > outside. We have privileged information. It's hard, at least for me, > to keep track of what *everyone* knows, and what only Harry knows. > That's why I'm noticing more and more, that we get a very limited > view. 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 :-)) 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. 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? 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. JMO of course, Alla From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Sep 30 22:40:07 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:40:07 -0000 Subject: Pureblood Pretenders and Sorting Hat Was (Re: Motivations for Joining DEs ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140983 > zgirnius: > It makes more sense to me this way. Would you really want to be the > poor Hat if you had to decide whether Hermione Granger's defining > innate ability is courage, cunning, cleverness, or hard work? While > she appears to have all 4 in spades, she values courage the most > highly. > 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. a_svirn From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 30 22:50:03 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:50:03 -0000 Subject: Identifying Enemies (was:Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140984 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > In CoS she comments about Arthur's car, "Muggles *do* know more > > than we give them credit for, don't they?" (p.66) > >>a_svirn: > Yes, it does sound patronizing. But then, the great muggle-lover > Arthur is rather patronizing too. 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. Betsy Hp